| 1 |
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:44:13 -0400 |
| 2 |
Thomas Cort <tcort@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on |
| 8 |
> > stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT |
| 9 |
> > comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to |
| 10 |
> > devs other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes longer |
| 13 |
- you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what |
| 14 |
config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have it |
| 15 |
in-line, I think. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you're not interested in the AT emerge --info data, why are you |
| 18 |
watching the stabilisation bug? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > It would certainly improve my RSI not to have to scroll past them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So that you know what configuration worked. This is useful information. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper |
| 27 |
> FEATURES, and an up to date system? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES |
| 30 |
were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the |
| 31 |
reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives