Comment 1 for bug 534216

Just a record of a pre-implementation conversation:

09:33 < wgrant> noodles775: Morning.
09:33 < noodles775> Hi wgrant!
09:33 < wgrant> noodles775: Can you please have a look at bug #534216 and maybe give some suggestions?
09:34 < noodles775> Suer.
09:34 < noodles775> Sure.
09:38 < noodles775> wgrant: pleasantly surprised that it's not a security bug :) So, +1 for the suggested breadcrumb urls, and regarding the second question,
09:38 < wgrant> noodles775: I decided that you didn't need any more of them in one week. :)
09:38 < noodles775> Why does it matter if two builds have the same breadcrumb (it's not a url), and the last breadcrumb (the i386) won't be a link anyway.
09:38 < noodles775> heh.
09:39 < wgrant> Right, it's not really important.
09:39 < wgrant> And it's a rare case anyway.
09:40 < noodles775> Yep, so +1 from me :).
09:40 < wgrant> Great, thanks.
09:40 * wgrant quickly implements.
09:41 < noodles775> wgrant: are you against there being a 'Packages for..." breadcrumb after the PPA title?
09:42 < noodles775> (ie. look at the breadcrumb when you traverse to +packages)
09:42 < wgrant> noodles775: Ah, yes, I thought about that earlier but it slipped my mind.
09:42 < noodles775> Great.
09:43 < wgrant> There should be, and probably a Builds breadcrumb as well. But that needs a custom hierarchy thingy.
09:45 < noodles775> Yeah, although the Builds breadcrumb is a nice-to-have-but-less-important IMO, as I'm assuming that most of the time people get to an individual build directly from the +packages page, rather than searching from +builds.
09:46 < wgrant> Right, probably.