1 |
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:27:29 -0400 |
2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even |
5 |
> emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a |
6 |
> great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are |
7 |
> USE-flag related more than architecture specific. As I said, the best |
8 |
> solution that I can see to do *both* reducing junk and still keeping |
9 |
> the information inline is to have the ATs only add emerge --info on |
10 |
> failures, and to just mention the architecture and *relevant" USE on |
11 |
> success. |
12 |
|
13 |
And do you propose ATs still attach `emerge info` in this solution? |
14 |
|
15 |
> ex. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> gcc 4.1.1 works on x86 with the following: |
18 |
> |
19 |
> USE="gtk nls -bootstrap -build -doc -fortran -gcj -hardened -ip28 |
20 |
> -ip32r10k -mudflap -multislot -nocxx -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test |
21 |
> -vanilla" |
22 |
|
23 |
Looks OK to me. But hey, aren't arch devs and testers alike supposed to |
24 |
test (almost) all flags? And also, wouldn't you also want to know about |
25 |
FEATURES, specifically FEATURES='{test,collision-detect}'? How about |
26 |
KEYWORDS? You would still need to be able to find the full `emerge info` |
27 |
in an attachment, I guess. |
28 |
|
29 |
> This still gives us most of the pertinent information without the rest |
30 |
> of the "spam" of emerge --info. It makes the emails from bugzilla |
31 |
> still usable for those of us that don't waste the time to open up |
32 |
> bugzilla for every bug. I do most of my bug management via email. I |
33 |
> open the bug *only* when I need to comment, or after I've performed |
34 |
> the work requested. Having to open the bug every time would be a |
35 |
> complete waste of time for me. Much more so than simply *deleting* |
36 |
> an email that doesn't pertain to me, or scrolling past unimportant |
37 |
> information. |
38 |
|
39 |
So we are still looking for a compromise that will place the burden on |
40 |
the $arch ADs and ATs, not the $other_arch devs, right? Currently it's |
41 |
basically a mindless integral copy/paste action which benefits only a |
42 |
few. |
43 |
|
44 |
> I would find that this change would be disruptive to my ability to |
45 |
> work on these architecture teams. As stated before, sometimes another |
46 |
> architecture's problem can point you at something to test. If a |
47 |
> certain USE combination doesn't work on x86, wouldn't you want to |
48 |
> test it on hppa specifically to make sure that it isn't a global |
49 |
> issue? I know that I sure test any combinations from $other_arches |
50 |
> when testing for a given $arch, if they've reported a failure. |
51 |
|
52 |
I still think failures should be reported in separate bugs, as they are |
53 |
likely to cause lots more information to be passed. |
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
Kind regards, |
57 |
JeR |
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |