New bodhi bugfix release in production
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Oct 25 23:54:53 UTC 2011
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 19:03 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > 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
Erm, put down the flamethrower. IRC was just an example.
Really this is just a tooling question of whether it's overall more
convenient to have Bodhi use IDs and then implement convenience
scripts/tools wherever we refer to the updates which can identify them -
like a bot in IRC, and a modification to the updates-testing email to
make it use the old format, etc - or whether it's better to have Bodhi
use NEVRs and then have to somehow deal with the problem of updates with
dozens of packages, and the problem of updates which are edited to
include *different* NEVRs.
Whichever one turns out to be the most efficient solution is what we'll
go with, I'm sure. No-one's out to get you. Deep breaths.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel