Re: Adding build status to the package list table

[Mark H Weaver]

Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric Bavier writes:
>
>> On 2015-11-19 13:57, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> The list of packages included in Guix [1] provides links to the build
>>>> status of each package in the details.  I would like to provide this
>>>> information in a column after "Package details", either as an icon or 
>>>> as
>>>> a count (e.g. 3/4 builds succeeded).  This provides a nicer overview 
>>>> for
>>>> the current status of the package.
>>> 
>>> Sounds good to me, but I'm not sure that either a single icon or a 
>>> count
>>> will be very useful.
>>> 
>>> We currently support four architectures: x86_64-linux, i686-linux,
>>> armhf-linux, and mips64el-linux.  There will likely be a fifth for the
>>> Hurd as well.
>>> 
>>> If the status is to be useful, users will need to see at a glance if 
>>> the
>>> package builds on their chosen architecture.  A count like 2/4 or 3/4
>>> doesn't tell me whether the package works on armhf.
>>> 
>>> So, I think we'd actually need one new column for each supported
>>> architecture.  I could imagine more clever solutions as well, but
>>> somehow it needs to indicate *which* architectures the package builds
>>> on, not just how many.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Could we add a small icon in the expanded view next to the current links 
>> that indicate pass/fail for that architecture?  This could possibly in 
>> addition to the summary count in the collapsed view.
>
> I think that would be a good idea. Adding icons per architecture next to
> the current links in the expanded view.
>
> Then have one column with an indicator for overall success or
> failure.

What does "overall success or failure" mean?  If a package builds
successfully on i686 and armhf, and fails on x86_64 and mips64el, does
that count as an "overall success" or an "overall failure"?

> Whether this is a count or an icon, I don't know which would be
> better. I think visually, an icon would be better. A count would be a
> little more informing.
>
> Having four (and in the future five) columns, each with an icon, would
> be too much I think.

I'm sorry if it seems like too much, but for the reasons I gave above, a
count or boolean is essentially useless, because it doesn't tell people
whether it works on their architecture of interest.

      Mark