New bodhi bugfix release in production

Al Dunsmuir al.dunsmuir at
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 mailing list