launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Aaron Bentley <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Nelson wrote:
> I was recently convinced by Cody (who has other motives ;)) at our
> soyuz sprint that it could be a Bad Idea. His point was (correct me
> where necessary Cody) that a SPRecipeBuild is only related to a PPA
> because the resulting source package will be uploaded to the PPA.

How is that different from a binary package?  Is it because the source
package that the binary is built from is also in the PPA?

I think that it would be useful to have a page that lists all the builds
that will affect the PPA, and +builds is the obvious place for it.  We
can, of course, provide filters to only show binary builds, if users
want that.

> That
> is, the resulting source package belongs in soyuz in the PPA context

This seems to be a distinction based on our organizational structure,
rather than on user needs.  Responsibility for recipes could plausibly
have been given to Soyuz, and if it had, this argument would evaporate,
right?

> but the recipe builds associated with a recipe should be traversed via
> the recipe.

Why?

> This would be a cleaner separation of responsibility
> (enabling further separation of the different apps in the future
> etc.).

I think that such a separation of responsibility would be artificial.
Recipe builds are related to both code and PPAs.

> Note: that is not to say that we wouldn't indicate on the PPA page
> that there are SPRecipeBuilds currently in progress targeting the PPA
> (view/template layer info), just that the SPRBuild isn't traversed via
> the PPA and merged with the soyuz binary builds.

But where *would* we show all recipe builds affecting the PPA if not there?

> I just checked the code teams initial cut document at:
> https://dev.launchpad.net/BuildBranchToArchiveUI/InitialCut
> 
> and saw there that a recipe will already have it's build history (ie.
> recipe_url/+builds), so it would seem to make sense to present the
> builds themselves under this traversal and only be a small step.

I don't understand.  That is already the plan.  What is the small step
you are proposing?

> Even if it is decided to go ahead with bug 536700, presenting the
> SPRBuilds under the recipe may be worthwhile as a first-cut.
> 
> Thoughts?

We will provide a list of recent builds of a recipe, but I think that an
overview of all the builds targetting a PPA is also needed.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkungCYACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI1imgCgiFv786AhwRXn0w/Hsde0V3mr
CdEAnAtaKaUSp1fph4ak0BNiGkHSDhiW
=RMzL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----