1 |
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:50:07 +0200 |
2 |
Sebastian Pipping <webmaster@××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > Taking any of it out would be |
5 |
> > removing things that are required to determine the cause of a bug. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I doubt that's true in most cases: The information needed to |
8 |
> finding the bug is a (possibly small) subset of the whole. |
9 |
|
10 |
Yes, but the computer doesn't know which subset it is, just like it |
11 |
doesn't know which subset of emerge --info is useful. There's nothing |
12 |
in there that's never relevant. |
13 |
|
14 |
> I don't see how additionally providing a stripped down version of |
15 |
> paludis info hurts anybody, as the subset either holds what the |
16 |
> wrangler needs or it doesn't, in which case they can still request |
17 |
> more information for the reporter. |
18 |
|
19 |
Or we could just provide the information the wrangler will need |
20 |
straight away. Much easier. |
21 |
|
22 |
> I suggest that you take this as a usability request from the users |
23 |
> of your software. Isn't that a great chance to make several people |
24 |
> happier every day in the future by just a few lines of code on your |
25 |
> end? Would they raise their voice if it did not matter? |
26 |
|
27 |
This isn't a usability request. Making the "use paludis --info cat/pkg" |
28 |
text stand out more was a usability request, and I was happy to make |
29 |
that change. This is a few noxious trolls whining in an attempt to cause |
30 |
trouble. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |