1 |
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200 |
2 |
"Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline |
5 |
> emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up |
6 |
> and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However |
7 |
> that's for "normal" bugs - I don't spend much time on stabilisation |
8 |
> bugs. |
9 |
|
10 |
"Personally" is meaningless in this context. The inline `emerge info` |
11 |
is quicker to process for you, not for other-arch devs out there. For |
12 |
them the info is useless. Stabilisation bugs in this context are bugs |
13 |
CC'd to many arch aliases (see below for a possible solution). |
14 |
|
15 |
> > you have to wade through all the AT spam to find out what is being |
16 |
> > changed over time. It's best to have it in attachments, I think. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Besides, you're wrong. ATs can add comments to attachments informing |
19 |
> > their arch devs of success or failure, and name the `emerge info` |
20 |
> > attachment properly so everybody knows what the attachment actually |
21 |
> > is (and when to ignore it). |
22 |
> |
23 |
> In what way am I wrong? I never said AT's can't add comments. |
24 |
|
25 |
ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an |
26 |
attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox. I |
27 |
have no problems with short comments like: |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
------- Comment #5 from jer@g.o 2006-08-01 02:47 PST ------- |
31 |
Created an attachment (id=93193) |
32 |
--> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=1&action=view) |
33 |
emerge info |
34 |
|
35 |
Works Great!!!1omg |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
> Effectively what you're saying is transcribe the emerge info into the |
39 |
> attachment name and attachment comment - which effectively makes it |
40 |
> in-line again. |
41 |
|
42 |
No, I meant put the `emerge info` in the attachment, describe the |
43 |
attachment properly ("emerge info" would do) and comment on the |
44 |
attachment submission with a statement pertaining to the success or |
45 |
failure of the test run. This can all be achieved in a single submit |
46 |
and it doesn't burden arch devs and bugzilla with lengthy comments. |
47 |
|
48 |
> Rule 1 in problem reporting - report your exact configuration and |
49 |
> exactly what you see, in the first instance, do not attempt to |
50 |
> interpret until you have that data recorded. |
51 |
|
52 |
Could you consider having ATs report the exact configuration |
53 |
elsewhere? In normal bugs, encouraging users to post their emerge info |
54 |
is a good thing. In stabilisation bugs, with well-instructed ATs |
55 |
posting comments, there's no need to do all that. |
56 |
|
57 |
> Not sure I understand. Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem |
58 |
> resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should |
59 |
> be raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the |
60 |
> stabilisation bug. If people are using stabilisation bugs for |
61 |
> development/bug fixing then they should stop doing so. |
62 |
|
63 |
N/A |
64 |
|
65 |
Stabilisation bugs should be short and simple. If the stabilisation |
66 |
target changes half way through (a revision bump perhaps, which |
67 |
happens quite often, or an extra dep, which happens quite often as |
68 |
well), arch devs need to be able to find that information quickly. |
69 |
|
70 |
> Well, it adds around 40 lines - I don't see that as a problem. It's a |
71 |
> good idea if the emerge info output is placed after whatever comment |
72 |
> is being made, so that if you don't care about it you can just skip to |
73 |
> the next message. |
74 |
|
75 |
Erm. It is a problem - I've explained why. It adds bloat and it clogs |
76 |
many arch devs' mailboxen with tons of useless info. Merrily skipping |
77 |
past it is impossible when a bug spans 5 instead of 2 pages because |
78 |
of 3 AT comments, interspersed with possibly useful comments. I guess |
79 |
you would feel the same way if I started inlining `emerge info` for all |
80 |
my HPPA systems. You'd have to parse each one of them just to find your |
81 |
own ATs' `emerge info` among mine. |
82 |
|
83 |
> Stabilisation bugs by their very nature are temporary - they are |
84 |
> active for the time it takes to decide a package can be marked stable. |
85 |
> Once the package version is marked stable, the bug should be closed. |
86 |
> I don't see what the communication problem is. |
87 |
|
88 |
Your communication problem used to be that you want the AT's info |
89 |
ready to use. Your solution was to have ATs inline `emerge info` in bug |
90 |
comments. This solution benefits only you, not other arches's devs, and |
91 |
in fact, it annoys them. Please find a better solution. |
92 |
|
93 |
One solution might be to open your own AT bug, make the stabilisation |
94 |
bug depend on it, and use the AT bug to have ATs post their `emerge |
95 |
info`. Then, when testing and stabilisation is finished for your arch, |
96 |
close the AT bug and remove your alias from the stabilisation bug's CC |
97 |
list. I for one could live with this solution to the problem, which I |
98 |
hope you understand by now. |
99 |
|
100 |
|
101 |
Kind regards, |
102 |
JeR |
103 |
-- |
104 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |