| 1 |
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:46:04 +0200 |
| 2 |
Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Not so hypothetical situation: someone files a bug: "Fancy KDE mail |
| 5 |
> program fails with my gcc", you fix it and live happily ever after. |
| 6 |
> How on earth am I supposed to find it when porting/stabilizing newer |
| 7 |
> version of gcc? |
| 8 |
> I expect (as many others) something similar to "=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 |
| 9 |
> fails to build with gcc-4.8" |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
We usually take it a step further, putting the actual error there; if |
| 12 |
the maintainer reads the error, it will be clear it failed to build: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 with GCC 4.8 - File:Line:Char: Error: Reason" |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I deeply respect the work of people who fix bugzilla subjects to |
| 17 |
> conform to "atom: issue" format. It saves me a great deal of time. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Thank you. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As a side note, I believe the separator for this format isn't defined; |
| 22 |
I see people as well as myself commonly use " - " as a separator, so |
| 23 |
I'm not sure where the ": " separator came from and don't see it as |
| 24 |
something to conform to (neither do I see " - " as such). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
This mail isn't meant to start a bike shed, but I just don't want either |
| 27 |
format to be seen as the definitive format; unless of course, there has |
| 28 |
been a prior consensus on what the separator should be. If there has |
| 29 |
been a prior discussion, and this is why I reply, I would like to know. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
With kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 38 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 39 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives