On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:56:18 +0000 (UTC) "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even back before it became the "in" thing, I was posting emerge > --info as attachments, because it simply fit the bill -- bugzy /says/ > to put long stuff as attachments. I never did quite understand why > all that admittedly often useful high-volume spew was tolerated in > the bug comments themselves. Personally I find it a lot easier to read a bug when the emerge --info data from people is inline. Frequently, the trigger for a bug becomes apparent when you compare the emerge --info of the various people who see a bug, and it's a moment's effort to scroll up and down the bug to compare data. This process takes longer if the info is in a bunch of attachments. [re. posting AT configs somewhere] > I like the idea above, tho. For ATs especially, having some place > where emerge --info could be posted just once, with a link to it > instead of the duplicated inline /or/ attachment, makes even more > sense. Presumably, where it's posted could have dated versions, too, > allowing for updated flags without invalidating the info pointed to > for older links. If variation off the norm was needed or used for an > individual package, that could be noted in the comments along with > the link to the standard info. I think the info changes frequently enough that it's easier, and more likely to be correct, if it's posted to the bug at the time the report is made. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
