On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
The problem with inlining is that processing the info takes longer -
you have to wade through all the AT spam to find out what is being
changed over time. It's best to have it in attachments, I think.
Besides, you're wrong. ATs can add comments to attachments informing
their arch devs of success or failure, and name the `emerge info`
attachment properly so everybody knows what the attachment actually is
(and when to ignore it).
> If you're not interested in the AT emerge --info data, why are you
> watching the stabilisation bug?
Because as an arch dev not on an AT-equipped arch, I still need to find
the interesting-not-your-arch-info between all the your-arch-cruft.
All these `emerge info` comments are completely irrelevant to every
arch dev for 14-ish out of 15-ish arches. Arch devs blessed with ATs'
preparations have their work cut out for them, it seems, having all
that info in their mailbox, while non-AT arches have to fork through
all the spam, both in their mailboxes and on bugs.g.o, to get to the
good bits (ouch, sparc beat us again, must stabilise before mips!).
Inlining emerge info in comments bloats the e-mail message to roughly
2.5 times the normal size. I could have spoken out to get AT comments
banned altogether or to urge arches with AT teams to find a proper
technical solution to communicate outside of bugs.g.o. I think using
attachments instead of inlining is a pretty good temporary solution to
a communication problem that has for now been solved by making every
stabilisation bug report a dumping ground for a ton of information that
becomes obsolete within a few days.
Kind regards,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
