| 1 |
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on |
| 5 |
> stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT |
| 6 |
> comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs |
| 7 |
> other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would |
| 8 |
> certainly improve my RSI not to have to scroll past them. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? |
| 11 |
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper |
| 12 |
FEATURES, and an up to date system? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical |
| 15 |
> package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and |
| 16 |
> preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to |
| 17 |
> mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means |
| 18 |
> arch devs won't need to guess/discover which of a few hundred categories |
| 19 |
> a package is meant to reside in. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I totally agree. An AT or arch team member should know which category, |
| 22 |
package, and version to test from the bug summary alone. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-Thomas |
Archives