[Buildbot-devel] Notes from Thursday's Meeting - 0.8.1 plans

Steve 'Ashcrow' Milner smilner at redhat.com
Mon May 3 14:33:15 UTC 2010

On 02/05/10 15:03 -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
>We had a few technical difficulties. I learned one thing: use a laptop
>which can connect to IRC (really SSH in this case): it turns out I was
>unable to see half of the conversation!  John O'Duinn will be
>uploading a video of the meeting, although apparently the video system
>died a few times, so it may be partial.  Also, the overhead
>microphones were not working, so it was difficult to hear a lot of the
>people in the room.  So I will try to summarize here.  The notes I
>displayed onscreen are here:
>  http://buildbot.net/trac/wiki/Meeting29April2010
>We began by talking about the major improvements to Buildbot in the
>0.8.0 release, as a basis for where Buildbot stands and what projects
>are in motion.  This provoked little discussion.
>Then we moved into looking at proposed work for 0.8.1, looking both at
>*whether* to do it and *how* to do it.
>== Web UI as a first-class citizen ==
>The web interface used to be a simple status display, a "peer" to
>other status displays.  Over the years, it's become a significant
>piece of Buildbot, and its official position should probably be
>updated.  There are some proposed enhancements to the existing web
>status, which saw no opposition.  We agreed that it should be possible
>to add other, more sophisticated web frontends to Buildbot, but didn't
>really discuss how to go about making that pluggable.
>We talked quite a bit about the various web services interfaces that
>Buildbot now sports: HTTP push, HTTP/HTML, XMLRPC, and JSON.  It was
>proposed to add a REST API, and I suggested that at least one other
>API should be removed.  So far, it looks like XMLRPC is on the
>chopping block (this is an open mailing-list thread right now).  As
>far as I know, nobody has stepped up to take on this task.  If someone
>does, I would like to see all of the APIs sport the same set of
>methods, parameters, and results, with a common implementation and

Fantastic! It may be a good idea to create a base service tier of code
which is _all_ functionality available through the service(s) and then
have service(s) expose the tier (rather than each service reimplement
the functionality).

Steve 'Ashcrow' Milner
Agent of Infosec
RHCE: https://www.redhat.com/training/certification/verify/?certno=805009277242449
ITIL Foundation: c.721843
IRC: ashcrow

Version: 3.1
GCS/IT/MU/O d-- s:+> a- C+++$ UBL+++$ P++@ L+++$>++++ !E--> W+++$ !N-
!o K--? !w-- !O- M- !V- PS PE+ Y+ PGP+++ t+ !5 !X R tv+ b+>++ DI+ !D-
G e h !r>+++ y?

"In the heat of conversation I may have said certain things I believe 
to be untrue. The alleged lie that you might have heard me saying 
allegedly moments ago ... that's a parasite that lives in my neck." 
     -- Tad Ghostal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100503/65f13540/attachment.bin>

More information about the devel mailing list