launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Michael Hudson <michael.hudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Penhey wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:59:45 Michael Hudson wrote:
>> 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 suggesting that we show the full dialog every time someone wants to 
> build, just when they are creating the recipe.

OK.

> Once the recipe is created we show this on the branch page (mockup pending) 
> and there is where we have the build button (if one is not running or 
> waiting).

Ah, right.

>>> 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.
> 
> No, that is not what I'm saying.
> 
> What I am saying is that for any given recipe connected to the branch there is 
> zero or one waiting or running build job.

Cool.  That makes sense.

>>> 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?
> 
> Ok.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Me too.
>  
>>> 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.
> 
> Do we want multi-distroseries recipes?

Well, what happens if the user can select both the current and
development distroseries -- which is what your mockup suggests -- then
we need something like that.

> I'm not suggesting throw-away recipes.

OK.  In that case you probably want a recipe name on the creation form.

Cheers,
mwh