New bodhi bugfix release in production

[Kevin Kofler]

Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm, a suggestion:

Maybe we could do what some sites like kde-apps.org do and default to URLs 
which include BOTH the ID and the packagename-version list, but have Bodhi 
only actually use the ID and ignore the packagename-version entirely.

See e.g.:
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Apper?content=84745
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/KPackageKit?content=84745
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Pink_Pony?content=84745
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=84745
(The first link is what the site produces by default, the second is what it 
used to produce before the package got renamed, the third is to prove you 
can write in anything and it will be ignored and the fourth is the 
equivalent of Bodhi's current ID-based URLs, which also works.)
But I'd put the ID first so it's easier to rip off the ignored stuff from 
the link if a short URL is needed.

That should bring us the best of both worlds (and people who are bothered by 
the redundant stuff could simply rip out everything after the ID from the 
URL, just as we're doing now for that CSRF junk anyway).

        Kevin Kofler