| 1 |
On 01/29/2018 07:29 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico posted on Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:21:48 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 01/28/2018 09:49 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> 3) Show a NOTE telling users about --changed-deps=y |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> This is in the HINT section, which is displayed if both --changed-deps |
| 8 |
>>> and --dynamic-deps are disabled in PATCH v2. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Actually, the whole report should be suppressed if either --changed-deps |
| 11 |
>> or --dynamic-deps is enabled, so I'll send PATCH v4 for that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This is shaping up quite nicely and by (1) dramatically shortening the |
| 14 |
> original "wall of text" report and (2) aborting the report if no affected |
| 15 |
> packages are in the graph, it's vastly improved from the original. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I definitely expect it to be rather helpful here, since I have both |
| 18 |
> --dynamic-deps and --changed-deps off by default, and seeing that list |
| 19 |
> could be /quite/ helpful. Looking forward to it! =:^) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Great! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> My remaining concern, and I'm not sure there's a solution, is that for |
| 24 |
> routine 30-day-plus updaters, the warning could quickly become "routine |
| 25 |
> noise", due to valid no-r-bump exceptions such as the llvm example mgorny |
| 26 |
> provided, which very well /could/ happen often enough to trigger the |
| 27 |
> warning nearly every time for 30-day-plus updaters. Then when it really |
| 28 |
> counts and could help, people will likely be ignoring it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Until we invent something better, people will have to set |
| 31 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--changed-deps-report=n" if it bothers them too |
| 32 |
much. This is acceptable to me because my main goal is simply to make |
| 33 |
people aware of --changed-deps when they need it most. If the set |
| 34 |
--changed-deps-report=n then it's their responsibility to know when to |
| 35 |
use --changed-deps. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Maybe someone else has an idea, but as I said it's already vastly |
| 38 |
> improved from the original, and I believe usable as-is, now, while I'd |
| 39 |
> have found the original quite irritating by about the third time I saw |
| 40 |
> it, even if also helpful. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Great, thanks for the feedback! |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Thanks, |
| 45 |
Zac |
Archives