1 |
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200 |
2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200 |
5 |
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes |
8 |
> > longer |
9 |
> > - you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what |
10 |
> > config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have |
11 |
> > it in-line, I think. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The problem with inlining is that processing the info takes longer - |
14 |
|
15 |
In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline |
16 |
emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up |
17 |
and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However |
18 |
that's for "normal" bugs - I don't spend much time on stabilisation |
19 |
bugs. |
20 |
|
21 |
> you have to wade through all the AT spam to find out what is being |
22 |
> changed over time. It's best to have it in attachments, I think. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Besides, you're wrong. ATs can add comments to attachments informing |
25 |
> their arch devs of success or failure, and name the `emerge info` |
26 |
> attachment properly so everybody knows what the attachment actually is |
27 |
> (and when to ignore it). |
28 |
|
29 |
In what way am I wrong? I never said AT's can't add comments. |
30 |
|
31 |
Effectively what you're saying is transcribe the emerge info into the |
32 |
attachment name and attachment comment - which effectively makes it |
33 |
in-line again. Obviously only a tiny part of that can actually be put |
34 |
in the attachment name, and there's little point to putting stuff in |
35 |
the attachment comment unless it's highly redacted - how is the AT |
36 |
going to decide what information is significant? |
37 |
|
38 |
Rule 1 in problem reporting - report your exact configuration and |
39 |
exactly what you see, in the first instance, do not attempt to |
40 |
interpret until you have that data recorded. |
41 |
|
42 |
> > If you're not interested in the AT emerge --info data, why are you |
43 |
> > watching the stabilisation bug? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Because as an arch dev not on an AT-equipped arch, I still need to |
46 |
> find the interesting-not-your-arch-info between all the |
47 |
> your-arch-cruft. |
48 |
|
49 |
Not sure I understand. Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem |
50 |
resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should be |
51 |
raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug. |
52 |
If people are using stabilisation bugs for development/bug fixing then |
53 |
they should stop doing so. |
54 |
|
55 |
> All these `emerge info` comments are completely irrelevant to every |
56 |
> arch dev for 14-ish out of 15-ish arches. Arch devs blessed with ATs' |
57 |
> preparations have their work cut out for them, it seems, having all |
58 |
> that info in their mailbox, while non-AT arches have to fork through |
59 |
> all the spam, both in their mailboxes and on bugs.g.o, to get to the |
60 |
> good bits (ouch, sparc beat us again, must stabilise before mips!). |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Inlining emerge info in comments bloats the e-mail message to roughly |
63 |
> 2.5 times the normal size. |
64 |
|
65 |
Well, it adds around 40 lines - I don't see that as a problem. It's a |
66 |
good idea if the emerge info output is placed after whatever comment is |
67 |
being made, so that if you don't care about it you can just skip to |
68 |
the next message. |
69 |
|
70 |
> I could have spoken out to get AT comments |
71 |
> banned altogether or to urge arches with AT teams to find a proper |
72 |
> technical solution to communicate outside of bugs.g.o. I think using |
73 |
> attachments instead of inlining is a pretty good temporary solution to |
74 |
> a communication problem that has for now been solved by making every |
75 |
> stabilisation bug report a dumping ground for a ton of information |
76 |
> that becomes obsolete within a few days. |
77 |
|
78 |
Stabilisation bugs by their very nature are temporary - they are |
79 |
active for the time it takes to decide a package can be marked stable. |
80 |
Once the package version is marked stable, the bug should be closed. I |
81 |
don't see what the communication problem is. |
82 |
|
83 |
-- |
84 |
Kevin F. Quinn |