Merge lp:~sil2100/cupstream2distro/rebuild_in_ppa into lp:cupstream2distro
Proposed by
Robert Bruce Park
Status: | Work in progress |
---|---|
Proposed branch: | lp:~sil2100/cupstream2distro/rebuild_in_ppa |
Merge into: | lp:cupstream2distro |
Diff against target: |
95 lines (+52/-12) 1 file modified
citrain/build.py (+52/-12) |
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~sil2100/cupstream2distro/rebuild_in_ppa |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
CU2D maintainers | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+267273@code.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
(sorry for proposing your branch, was just curious to see a diff!)
To post a comment you must log in.
Unmerged revisions
- 963. By Łukasz Zemczak
-
Help string for the new option
- 962. By Łukasz Zemczak
-
Merge trunk
- 961. By Łukasz Zemczak
-
Initial version of the PPARebuild scenario, where landers can request rebuilds of packages in the PPA without re-uploading. No tests, ugly case-handling.
I like where you're going with this PPARebuild class, but I wonder if it should be moved into a new jenkins job rather than having Yet Another Checkbox on the build job? Especially considering that checking that box makes so many other boxes ignored, it seems weird to have one checkbox that can invalidate other checkboxes from a usability perspective.
If we started a new jenkins job for this, the benefit would be that there'd be no options at all except for the package name selector, which would be delightfully simple.
What do you think?