New bodhi bugfix release in production

Michael Cronenworth mike at
Tue Oct 25 22:32:26 UTC 2011

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 test@ or in
>> >  trac, now.
> I'd be happy to revert this if the majority of people prefer the other
> format. Bodhi will still use the n-v-r style URLs for the
> updates-testing digests, but will default to the static IDs otherwise.
> The biggest problem with using the builds in the URL is that the URLs break if they
> are edited to add/remove/update them. I guess we could add some
> additional logic to try and be clever and find the update even if one of
> the builds is missing or modified.

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 enhancement to the IRC bot that translates 
bug URLs into descriptions to also handle bodhi IDs?

More information about the devel mailing list