Hi Paul, On Samstag, 11. Juli 2015, Paul Wise wrote: > It was a poor choice of words. Apologies for that.
Gladly accepted and thanks a lot for wording your concerns and suggestion
nicely!
> Having only a mapping between package name, message to show and URL to
> link back to would be best. This would avoid breaking URLs in the
> future as the JSON would contain the right URLs. This would avoid
> showing things on the tracker when reproducible builds folks don't
> want them to be shown.
I think this makes sense, but it can be equally changing: eg we might want to
provide version numbers too...
> For example, if RB folks start caring about
> unreproducibility introduced in security uploads, that should be
> reflected in the JSON and not require changes to the tracker code.
I'm not sure "we" will ever care about those, as in, I rather envision a
future where unreproducible packages are not part of testing nor stable…
To say it differently: I'm not sure reproducible-tracker.json will be the data
source in the future...
> I hope that helps…
it does! Now I just wonder whether to reassign this bug to qa.d.o (and usertag
it jenkins.d.n) or keep it here... (or maybe close and file a new one?)
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
