On Mon, 07/17 10:28, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 17 July 2017 at 10:05, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > >> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. > >> Is > >> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated > >> into > >> one? > > > > I'd like to avoid situations where one of the failure emails is sent > > hours after the others, because it's possible that the patch series > > author has already sent the next (still broken) revision by that time. > > The simplest way to avoid that is by sending just one email. > > > >> Q2: Some think the full log in the mail body is more than necessary. Is it > >> better or worse if it is a "tail -n 200" of the log in the body and the > >> full log > >> attached? > > > > tail output and a link to the full logs would be nice. Often there is a > > lot of irrelevant output. > > Ideally we'd streamline our make process to not produce so much > irrelevant output :-)
Does that mean to make "quite-command" absolutely quiet if V=1 is not specified? ;-) Fam
