launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM, James Westby <jw+debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:36:28 +0000, Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> There are open questions about how it matches with some UI issues, and
>> >> how we store the recipes given the fact that they aren't necessarily
>> >> tied to a single series.
>> >>
>>
>> Storage should be guided by the UI, not the other way around.
>
> Indeed, what I meant was:
>
>  traversal needs to be considered, as the current plan falls down to
>  some extent if a recipe doesn't have a single target series. In
>  addition there are open UI questions about which recipe to present to
>  the user given that the current mockups lead them to choose the recipe
>  before selecting target distroseries. If they are looking at a
>  packaging branch then we can key of that, but even then do you show
>  all recipes that have been used to build for that series? Only those
>  that had a successful build? What do you show if none have been built
>  for the series yet (e.g. the day after we release lucid and open m***)
>

All good questions :)

I reckon Tim or Michael N will be able to answer those more quickly
and more clearly than I.

...
>>  * It looks like it has the potential to be very confusing
>
> Could you be a little more verbose?
>

A derived recipe isn't designed for readability. To understand what it
means, you need to be able to look at the parent recipes. The
difference between "insert-after" and "insert-nest" causes me to pause
and think when I read them. All of these combined make me think that
derived recipes can confuse newbies.

I think it's pretty much inherent to derivation though.

>>  * Why not "remove"?
>
> If you aint gonna need it...
>

OK, you've convinced me. Let's wait for a use case :)

>> What's the next step?
>
> I need to know that the proposals here allow for the desired UI to be
> implemented, and we need a decision on the two options in the
> multi-series proposal.
>
> Once we have something that works well for the user experience I can
> implement it or help someone else through the process.
>
> I will be waiting on confirmation from the LP team on what they would
> like to have, preferably with (updated) mockups that outline how they
> will map to the new features.
>

OK. I don't have an opinion now, but will cultivate one carefully over
the next few hours.

jml