On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:44:13 -0400 Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on > > stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT > > comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to > > devs other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes longer - you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have it in-line, I think. If you're not interested in the AT emerge --info data, why are you watching the stabilisation bug? > > It would certainly improve my RSI not to have to scroll past them. > > Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? So that you know what configuration worked. This is useful information. > Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper > FEATURES, and an up to date system? It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
