launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Michael Hudson <michael.hudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Penhey wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I've been spending more time looking at this, and I want to make sure we start 
> getting some traction on the UI to build.
> 
> I'm not yet convinced that showing existing recipes is useful at this stage.  
> We aren't yet clear ourselves why we'd want to do this or what it would mean.

I know we talked about this a bit this morning, but now I'm not so sure.
   Even in the current model, a recipe encodes enough information that
you probably don't want to select the packaging branch each and every
time you want to build.

I'm not sure why you'd want to see anyone else's recipes in this dialog.

> The initial thing we want to do is to provide a way to create a recipe for a 
> branch and start with manual builds.

This sounds like a good place to start from, yes.

> By that I mean that we don't
> automatically reschedule builds to happen daily, but have a "build now" type 
> button that creates a build job if and only if there isn't one waiting or 
> running already.  This button should obviously not be there if there is one 
> waiting or pending.

Are you saying that for any branch, there can only be one build of a
recipe that has the given branch as its base_branch?  I'm not sure
that's really what we want.

> With this in mind, we'd be creating a recipe from one of two places:
>  - a project branch (no packaging info - or most likely no packaging info)
>  - a packaging branch (may have trunk merged in)
>    * are we even going to allow this for now?

For now, for the sake of doing something, let's not?

> My thoughts around this are how to provide a sensible debian version template 
> for the recipe.  We only want the {revno:packaging} if there is a packaging 
> branch.

Well, it's easy enough to tell if there's a packaging branch.

> Perhaps we start off really strict, and slowly roll out options.  This I'm in 
> favour with, especially with the feature branch merge work that Bjorn is 
> championing.

Yeah.  It feels like we're verging on analysis paralysis now.

> I suggest a somewhat limited initial cut for the build from branch.  Attached 
> is my first mockup with Balsamiq.  I don't offer a revision to build, only show 
> the current and development distro series.

We still don't have a way to represent a multi distroseries recipe.  For
now we could just create multiple recipes.

We probably want to allow the name of a SourcePackageRecipe to be NULL
if we're going to go for these throw-away type recipes to start with.

> I'm also wondering where the {debupstream} bit comes from.  From something in 
> the deb directory I'm guessing.

Yeah, as Rob said.

Cheers,
mwh