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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.