| 1 |
El dom, 26-04-2015 a las 08:04 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting |
| 5 |
> > for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be parsed. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing |
| 9 |
> by a computer program? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into |
| 12 |
> fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we |
| 13 |
> then have to carefully break back down? We might as well start |
| 14 |
> sticking xml in the summary. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how |
| 17 |
> variation makes your life more difficult today? I'm just trying to |
| 18 |
> understand what we're trying to fix... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
About parsing it with scripts. For example, a script that could run |
| 22 |
periodically to fetch that lists, try to keyword them and see if repoman |
| 23 |
is ok with them or, otherwise, more deps need to be stabilized together. |
| 24 |
That would also allow us to easily fetch the list of packages + bugs we |
| 25 |
need to work on to, for example, emerge them (without needing to go to |
| 26 |
the list, copy the needed package atoms, paste them on a local file, go |
| 27 |
to the next bug...) |
Archives