New bodhi bugfix release in production
al.dunsmuir at sympatico.ca
Tue Oct 25 23:03:22 UTC 2011
On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 6:32:26 PM, Michael wrote:
> 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?
This is surreal. Are you trying to single handely kill what little
real user testing is being done on the various Fedora releases?
Now you want to make users bring up yet another tool - an IRC client?
Why not just be done with it, and bury the reports in a locked filing
cabinet in a barred sub-basement room labeled "Ignore me - do not
Perhaps there are simpler alternatives.
The whole point of the updates testing reports is to provide
information that _quickly_ makes folks aware of what new packages are
available in updates-testing for a given release.
Real users know the names of the packages that they use. That
information is now gone - hidden behind a VERY SLOW process of is
following links. I tried the first day the report changed. I gave
up, as it was taking a significant time to bring up each link.
The first reaction in the proven testers meeting was that the new
reports were not at all useful, and should be immediately reverted.
It has been a number of weeks since then, but it appears we now have
something else instead.
The report generated by the latest iteration is broken. This has
already been noted by others, and they have made suggestions as to
how to fix this (listing the package names below the URL).
I had an idea a number of weeks ago to increase the visibility of
those packages sitting for long periods of time in updates-testing, in
faint hope that someone would care enough to test and give karma.
Kevin Fenzi encouraged me to open a TRAC request. It was to simply
show the number of days that each package has been in updates-testing
in the report, something that bodhi should have readily at hand.
Having URLs that are not brokwn is important. Showing the package name
and the number of days it has been in updates testing (to the left of
the name) is equally important. Please consider doing all of these in
your next revision.
More information about the devel