[bug#32121] [PATCH 4/5] database: Call a specification 'jobset' instead of 'project'.

["Clément Lassieur" <clement@lassieur.org>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> So we’d be moving the project/branch structure to naming conventions.

Yes.

> In a way, that’s not great, because as users we like to think in terms
> of branches to answer questions like “how many packages failed in branch
> X of the Savannah repo?”.
>
> However, this can probably be addressed at the UI level: the web UI and
> guix-hydra.el could list (shortened) repo URLs and branch names instead
> of this ‘name’ field.  Eventually, we could remove this ‘name’ field
> altogether and instead have an automatically-assigned numerical ID.
>
> WDYT?
>
> (This does not affect this patch series, I’m thinking about what we can
> do eventually.)
>
>> However, we could still be able to bind a specification to a branch, but
>> that would require adding a 'guix-input' specification field, so that
>> the specification knows which input is the one whose branch should be
>> displayed.  I doubt it's worth it though.  Or we could replace the
>> 'load-path-inputs' field with a 'guix-input' field.  That was kind of
>> the point of the 3rd part of my initial message[1].  Or, we could
>> automate things: find out from which input the Guix modules come.  That
>> would be a bit tricky.
>
> Oh right, since we now have multiple inputs, what I wrote above is not
> quite true; there can be several repo URLs/branches that would need to
> be shown on the UI.  Hmm, maybe we need to keep the ‘name’, but only as
> a hint and not as a key.

Yes.  As you said above, we could display a preview of all the inputs
(name, URL, branch) in that 'name' field.  And call it 'inputs', maybe.
:-)

Cc'ing Tatiana, as this is a UI thing.  Tatiana, you can follow the
whole conversation at:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-07/msg00023.html
and
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32121.