Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long is too long? 8K characters (and bugzilla will actually send you to places where the sun doesn't shine if you try to post something that exceeds this limit). -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:56:18 + (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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
On 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer) wrote: Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: One solution might be to open your own AT bug, make the stabilisation bug depend on it, and use the AT bug to have ATs post their `emerge info`. Then, when testing and stabilisation is finished for your arch, close the AT bug and remove your alias from the stabilisation bug's CC list. I for one could live with this solution to the problem, which I hope you understand by now. This sounds quite interesting...maybe some arch devs should comment on that. The only problem I see is when two ATs test at the same time and open two separate bugs for the same arch. And another problem: Other arches don't see the problems in the depending bug and are unlikely to comment on it. Besides the points you mentioned, it would create a lot of bug spam. There would be the a new bug depends on this bug e-mail when the AT files the bug, then there would be the a bug that depends on this bug has changed state e-mail when the arch dev closes the AT's bug, and then there would be the e-mail from the arch dev when he/she comments on the original bug saying arch-xyz stable -Thomas pgpsF5RKCaBpJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
