Ugh, well I wouldn't want to end up with flipflopping bugs, but to
grab the points from that mail...
* The subject doesn't tell you it is a recipe build.
- I'm not sure why this matters? - and the current header doesn't
tell us that either.
* the subject doesn't identify the recipe uniquely or the PPA. If you
have a lot of recipes this could get confusing
- my proposed header does identify the PPA uniquely, and the package
+ PPA should tell folk what to look at, if they are uploading both
source packages and recipes to the same PPA with the same packagename
- well, gun, foot, trigger.
* The body is rather terse and doesn't tell me much about what happened.
- I'm totally fine with the body we have now.
* It is needlessly incosistent with what you get for binary builds.
- What we have for binary builds is pretty darn ugly too :)
What do you think? were my suggestions useful? Do you enjoy reading
recipe emails at the moment?
Ugh, well I wouldn't want to end up with flipflopping bugs, but to
grab the points from that mail...
* The subject doesn't tell you it is a recipe build.
- I'm not sure why this matters? - and the current header doesn't
tell us that either.
* the subject doesn't identify the recipe uniquely or the PPA. If you
have a lot of recipes this could get confusing
- my proposed header does identify the PPA uniquely, and the package
+ PPA should tell folk what to look at, if they are uploading both
source packages and recipes to the same PPA with the same packagename
- well, gun, foot, trigger.
* The body is rather terse and doesn't tell me much about what happened.
- I'm totally fine with the body we have now.
* It is needlessly incosistent with what you get for binary builds.
- What we have for binary builds is pretty darn ugly too :)
What do you think? were my suggestions useful? Do you enjoy reading
recipe emails at the moment?
-Rob