On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:26:13PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:59:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The
Adam Williamson wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
negative. It seems people liked being able to tell from the URL what the
update actually *was*. I must admit I do to. I've resorted to creating
the 'old-style' URLs manually when I do lists of updates on
On 26/10/11 12:45, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Maybe we could do what some sites like kde-apps.org do and default to URLs
which include BOTH the ID and the packagename-version list, but have Bodhi
only actually use the ID and ignore the packagename-version entirely.
See e.g.:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If an update has the n-e-v-r changed, the n-e-v-r being replaced is not
likely to ever be used in a different future update. So each update could
maintain a list of all n-e-v-r's that have ever been associated with it.
Then make bodhi support URLs for all n-e-v-r's
On 2011-10-25 15:17, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's not just the updates-testing list, though. When I go to the web
interface, search for updates to, say, grub2, get a list, and click on
one of the results, I get an ID-based URL, not a package name-based one.
I then paste that into an email, IRC
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 13:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Really this is just a tooling question of whether it's overall more
convenient to have Bodhi use IDs and then implement convenience
scripts/tools wherever we refer to the updates which can identify them -
like a
Or perhaps even:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA--N/package1-1.1.fc16,package2-1.1.fc16
where anything after the FEDORA--N doesn't matter, but could
contain all the current packages in the update.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:04:12PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Or perhaps even:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA--N/package1-1.1.fc16,package2-1.1.fc16
where anything after the
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:17:10PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:04:12PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Or perhaps even:
On 10/26/2011 05:27 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
Many CMS systems and the like work in that way. It's also what things
like stackoverflow do, for example:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7901782/war-does-not-start-on-tomcat5-on-redhat-enterprise-server
where only the question number really
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The
bodhi-client is currently on it's way to updates-testing for all releases.
Server fixes
- Default to update ID-based
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:59:51 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into
production. The bodhi-client is currently on it's way to
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 16:10 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:59:51 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:59:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The
bodhi-client is currently on it's way to updates-testing for all
Luke Macken wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
negative. It seems people liked being able to tell from the URL what the
update actually*was*. I must admit I do to. I've resorted to creating
the 'old-style' URLs manually when I do lists of updates
On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 6:32:26 PM, Michael wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
negative. It seems people liked being able to tell from the URL what the
update actually*was*. I must admit I do to. I've resorted to creating
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 19:03 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Think about how bugzilla bugs are handled in IRC. Bugs all have ID
numbers. Why should updates be different? I vote for static IDs because
I have run into the case of modified updates and broken URLs.
Adam, can you not pursue an
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
bodhi v0.8.3
Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The
bodhi-client is currently on it's way to updates-testing for all
releases.
Server fixes
-
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 20:30 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
negative.
Coming from someone (me) who often does updates involving 1 pkg that
sometimes require removing/adding components after initial submission, I
very much
19 matches
Mail list logo
