On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 18:00 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > And do you propose ATs still attach `emerge info` in this solution?
No. It really should be inline. I'm sorry if you think that 5K seems like a lot of "spam" but having to open a browser just to look at "emerge --info" is a complete waste of time. Especially as I have already said that I've used information from *other arches* to help me pinpoint problems on the architecture that I am currently testing. > gcc 4.1.1 works on x86 with the following: > > > > USE="gtk nls -bootstrap -build -doc -fortran -gcj -hardened -ip28 > > -ip32r10k -mudflap -multislot -nocxx -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test > > -vanilla" > > Looks OK to me. But hey, aren't arch devs and testers alike supposed to > test (almost) all flags? And also, wouldn't you also want to know about > FEATURES, specifically FEATURES='{test,collision-detect}'? How about > KEYWORDS? You would still need to be able to find the full `emerge info` > in an attachment, I guess. Umm... Arch Testers are required to use FEATURES="test collision-protect" as well as stable KEYWORDS, so that really is somewhat irrelevant, especially on a success. While it's all warm and fuzzy to say that every iteration of a package must be tested, I'd like to see you try with things like PHP. > > This still gives us most of the pertinent information without the rest > > of the "spam" of emerge --info. It makes the emails from bugzilla > > still usable for those of us that don't waste the time to open up > > bugzilla for every bug. I do most of my bug management via email. I > > open the bug *only* when I need to comment, or after I've performed > > the work requested. Having to open the bug every time would be a > > complete waste of time for me. Much more so than simply *deleting* > > an email that doesn't pertain to me, or scrolling past unimportant > > information. > > So we are still looking for a compromise that will place the burden on > the $arch ADs and ATs, not the $other_arch devs, right? Currently it's > basically a mindless integral copy/paste action which benefits only a > few. What burden? Having to delete a message? Scroll past a hundred lines of text? Seriously, the impact on the people that *rely* on this to get their work done would seem to outweigh the minor inconvenience of having to scroll/hit the delete key. > > I would find that this change would be disruptive to my ability to > > work on these architecture teams. As stated before, sometimes another > > architecture's problem can point you at something to test. If a > > certain USE combination doesn't work on x86, wouldn't you want to > > test it on hppa specifically to make sure that it isn't a global > > issue? I know that I sure test any combinations from $other_arches > > when testing for a given $arch, if they've reported a failure. > > I still think failures should be reported in separate bugs, as they are > likely to cause lots more information to be passed. They still need to be mentioned in the stabilization bug, no matter what. The problem that I see with your proposal is it removes information from the bug in question by spreading it out all over bugzilla, as well as reduces transparency. As I have said, I have found other architecture's information to be *invaluable* in my own architecture developer work. Perhaps you have found this to not be the case for you, but trying to force everyone to switch to a process that is only slightly more convenient for you and causes others to spend a proportionally much greater amount of time to get the same information sounds like a bad idea to me. You asked for some comments. I've commented. I don't find information to be "cruft" and my vote would be "no" on forcing attachments for "emerge --info"... -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part