-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Nelson wrote:
> Normally we have a human readable displayname, and name is normally
> cake_recipe, but perhaps you guys decided against this for good
> reason (we should slugify the displayname for the initial name
> right?). The mockup for recipe creation assumed it would be a slug:
> http://people.canonical.com/~michaeln/bfb/create_recipe_v2-collapsed.png

The table does not provide a displayname, so I used the name.  It was an
error to use "Cake Recipe" as the name.  I should have used
"cake_recipe" or similar.

> It's unfortunate that branch names are so long - it's the one thing
> that looks very squashed in your screenshot (looks fine locally with
> a wider browser of course), but I guess you always have to deal with
> that :) Is it possible to use a short name here?

We use short names automatically when they are available, but most
branches don't have short names.

> Now I'm sure this *is* something you've discussed - but why isn't the
> traversal for a recipe (or recipes) off the base branch?

The canonical URL is already defined in stable/dbstable; it was not
introduced by this branch.  Tim proposed the current URL and no one
disagreed, so it was documented in
https://dev.launchpad.net/BuildBranchToArchiveUI/InitialCut

As you note, branch names are long, which is a disadvantage.
Sourcepackagebranches have even longer names.  It's also trivial to
change the base branch in a recipe, so varying the name according to the
base branch would make URLs volatile.

> Similar to Guilherme, I think "Distros" should be "Distribution
> series" (as it's the series to which you're linking). This is
> consistent with the product-packages.pt template. There are some
> cases where we simply use "Series" but that's only when the context
> is already a distribution.

Done

> On a related note: I also agree that we should not need to re-define
> the buildstate titles/descriptions (what's wrong with "Successfully
> built 7 minutes ago" in the UI?)

It's not the UI that I was tasked to implement:
http://people.canonical.com/~rockstar/RecipeView.png

>. I don't see why we can't define a
> good set of common titles and descriptions (that's why we moved
> BuildBase and BuildStatus to lp.buildmaster). The main issue seems to
> be that the current ones (BuildStatus) are still soyuz-specific and I
> guess changing them will blow this branch out (due to test failures).

I find the existing ones hard to understand.  That's the biggest issue
from my point of view.  But they also didn't match the grammar in the UI
mockup.

> Can you create a bug and XXX here so that we don't forget.

Per Julian, I have changed all the enums to match what Code needs.

> Again, something you've probably already discussed, but in the
> mockups we were planning on presenting the "Packaging branch"

We believe that's not required for the initial cut.  We are going for
the simplest thing that could possibly work.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkuo1TAACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI24+QCfUT8AQewwkMkqOV8rbYaLIMch
ncoAnj4u3smwkzElVHGC3Jfat7xEEoyV
=FHs+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----