New bodhi bugfix release in production
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Oct 26 19:04:01 UTC 2011
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 13:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 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.:
> (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).
That sure sounds good to me, if we hit on a format that's easily
readable. nice idea.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel