[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Matti, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Matti Bickel schrieb: Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? The problem is that at least USE flags change relatively fast overtime and there are slight differences. When you compare a bug from July 06 and have a look at the emerge --info that has been updated August 06, it can be somewhat misleading. Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug is annoying and should be abolished. Do you have a proposition how to provide the same functionality? V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgp7kIpvd7RVq.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would certainly improve my RSI not to have to scroll past them. And when there is a problem, attachments have to be opened...some more steps, especially when there have been a dozen testers and their info has to be filtered out of the attachment list. On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and preferably the specific version, not some =foo-3*!!!one, not to mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means arch devs won't need to guess/discover which of a few hundred categories a package is meant to reside in. Seconded. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgpM6yPkvrYCR.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: 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. Basically you are right about cruft, but the information the ATs submit should be accessible to everyone so the actual solution without attachments (because of more work) is the bestTM. What other ways of communication between ATs and devs do you propose? Some kind of arch Bugzilla? IMO it should be permanent with a link from the stabilisation bug so that everyone (devs, users, ATs) can follow the path of stabilisation. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgp756JUdHV3A.pgp Description: PGP 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] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200 Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 - In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However that's for normal bugs - I don't spend much time on stabilisation bugs. 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). In what way am I wrong? I never said AT's can't add comments. Effectively what you're saying is transcribe the emerge info into the attachment name and attachment comment - which effectively makes it in-line again. Obviously only a tiny part of that can actually be put in the attachment name, and there's little point to putting stuff in the attachment comment unless it's highly redacted - how is the AT going to decide what information is significant? Rule 1 in problem reporting - report your exact configuration and exactly what you see, in the first instance, do not attempt to interpret until you have that data recorded. 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. Not sure I understand. Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should be raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug. If people are using stabilisation bugs for development/bug fixing then they should stop doing so. 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. Well, it adds around 40 lines - I don't see that as a problem. It's a good idea if the emerge info output is placed after whatever comment is being made, so that if you don't care about it you can just skip to the next message. 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. Stabilisation bugs by their very nature are temporary - they are active for the time it takes to decide a package can be marked stable. Once the package version is marked stable, the bug should be closed. I don't see what the communication problem is. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However that's for normal bugs - I don't spend much time on stabilisation bugs. Personally is meaningless in this context. The inline `emerge info` is quicker to process for you, not for other-arch devs out there. For them the info is useless. Stabilisation bugs in this context are bugs CC'd to many arch aliases (see below for a possible solution). 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). In what way am I wrong? I never said AT's can't add comments. ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox. I have no problems with short comments like: --- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:47 PST --- Created an attachment (id=93193) -- (http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=1action=view) emerge info Works Great!!!1omg Effectively what you're saying is transcribe the emerge info into the attachment name and attachment comment - which effectively makes it in-line again. No, I meant put the `emerge info` in the attachment, describe the attachment properly (emerge info would do) and comment on the attachment submission with a statement pertaining to the success or failure of the test run. This can all be achieved in a single submit and it doesn't burden arch devs and bugzilla with lengthy comments. Rule 1 in problem reporting - report your exact configuration and exactly what you see, in the first instance, do not attempt to interpret until you have that data recorded. Could you consider having ATs report the exact configuration elsewhere? In normal bugs, encouraging users to post their emerge info is a good thing. In stabilisation bugs, with well-instructed ATs posting comments, there's no need to do all that. Not sure I understand. Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should be raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug. If people are using stabilisation bugs for development/bug fixing then they should stop doing so. N/A Stabilisation bugs should be short and simple. If the stabilisation target changes half way through (a revision bump perhaps, which happens quite often, or an extra dep, which happens quite often as well), arch devs need to be able to find that information quickly. Well, it adds around 40 lines - I don't see that as a problem. It's a good idea if the emerge info output is placed after whatever comment is being made, so that if you don't care about it you can just skip to the next message. Erm. It is a problem - I've explained why. It adds bloat and it clogs many arch devs' mailboxen with tons of useless info. Merrily skipping past it is impossible when a bug spans 5 instead of 2 pages because of 3 AT comments, interspersed with possibly useful comments. I guess you would feel the same way if I started inlining `emerge info` for all my HPPA systems. You'd have to parse each one of them just to find your own ATs' `emerge info` among mine. Stabilisation bugs by their very nature are temporary - they are active for the time it takes to decide a package can be marked stable. Once the package version is marked stable, the bug should be closed. I don't see what the communication problem is. Your communication problem used to be that you want the AT's info ready to use. Your solution was to have ATs inline `emerge info` in bug comments. This solution benefits only you, not other arches's devs, and in fact, it annoys them. Please find a better solution. 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. Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
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. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:23 +0200 Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However that's for normal bugs - I don't spend much time on stabilisation bugs. Personally is meaningless in this context. Personally is critical. Part of my point was that whatever way it's done, it will be better for some and worse for others. In other words, what is better is subjective. In order to decide to change how things are currently done, you need to show that it is better for a majority of the people affected. The inline `emerge info` is quicker to process for you, not for other-arch devs out there. For them the info is useless. Stabilisation bugs in this context are bugs CC'd to many arch aliases (see below for a possible solution). 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). In what way am I wrong? I never said AT's can't add comments. ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox. I have no problems with short comments like: --- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:47 PST --- Created an attachment (id=93193) -- (http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=1action=view) emerge info Works Great!!!1omg ok; that makes better sense. Effectively what you're saying is transcribe the emerge info into the attachment name and attachment comment - which effectively makes it in-line again. No, I meant put the `emerge info` in the attachment, describe the attachment properly (emerge info would do) and comment on the attachment submission with a statement pertaining to the success or failure of the test run. This can all be achieved in a single submit and it doesn't burden arch devs and bugzilla with lengthy comments. Doesn't make the slightest difference to the burden on bugzilla, whether they're inline or attachments. Whether it's a burden on arch devs or not, you'd have to poll. If you do go this route, I suggest the attachment title be PASS (emerge info) or FAIL (emerge info); easier to parse the attachment list. Also allows you to process email by just the subject header. Rule 1 in problem reporting - report your exact configuration and exactly what you see, in the first instance, do not attempt to interpret until you have that data recorded. Could you consider having ATs report the exact configuration elsewhere? In normal bugs, encouraging users to post their emerge info is a good thing. In stabilisation bugs, with well-instructed ATs posting comments, there's no need to do all that. Well, I do think the report of the configuration the AT had at the time of the test should be held as close as possible to the place where it has relevance. As far as this point is concerned, having it as an attachment is fine. Having it posted on some website somewhere else as others have suggested is a bad idea, I think. Not sure I understand. Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should be raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug. If people are using stabilisation bugs for development/bug fixing then they should stop doing so. N/A Stabilisation bugs should be short and simple. If the stabilisation target changes half way through (a revision bump perhaps, which happens quite often, or an extra dep, which happens quite often as well), arch devs need to be able to find that information quickly. Well, it adds around 40 lines - I don't see that as a problem. It's a good idea if the emerge info output is placed after whatever comment is being made, so that if you don't care about it you can just skip to the next message. Erm. It is a problem - I've explained why. It adds bloat and it clogs many arch devs' mailboxen with tons of useless info. Merrily skipping past it is impossible when a bug spans 5 instead of 2 pages because of 3 AT comments, interspersed with possibly useful comments. I guess you would feel the same way if I started inlining `emerge info` for all my HPPA systems. You'd have to parse each one of them just to find your own ATs' `emerge info` among mine. I don't understand how you're getting many pages in one email - surely each report by an AT is a separate comment and hence a separate email,
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox. Ok, so i sample my emerge --info myconfig.txt and attach that. This is ok with me. However, i propose that this functionality is included into pybugz, which already offers inlining emerge --info. That would speed up the process tremendously (thanks liquidx!). 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`. I disagree. That adds complexity and thus increases time spent on bugzi w/o actual benefit for the overall dev-community. I'd rather go w/ posting emerge --info as a attachment. -- MfG, Matti Bickel Homepage: http://www.rateu.de Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpscnHaz4joo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:25:11 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to decide to change how things are currently done, you need to show that it is better for a majority of the people affected. (N minus 1 of N arches) times (the number of arch devs minus the number of $ARCH devs) are affected. The difference in comfort versus annoyance is even greater when you consider that only one arch dev per AT-equipped arch is likely to look at it and make the stabilisation judgment and then take action. That's N -1 arch dev's comfort against N arch devs' annoyance[1]. No, I meant put the `emerge info` in the attachment, describe the attachment properly (emerge info would do) and comment on the attachment submission with a statement pertaining to the success or failure of the test run. This can all be achieved in a single submit and it doesn't burden arch devs and bugzilla with lengthy comments. Doesn't make the slightest difference to the burden on bugzilla, whether they're inline or attachments. Note that I specifically said with lengthy comments. Whether it's a burden on arch devs or not, you'd have to poll. Mailing 2.4kB instead 5kB to many dozens of people sure constitutes a smaller burden on bugzilla and on dev.gentoo.org, wrt the attachment solution, and on all the arch devs to whom the information is useless. Alternatively, wrt the AT bug solution, mailing 5kB to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arch devs and ATs for one arch) instead of mailing same to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (all arch devs and ATs for all arches) makes a pretty big difference. If you do go this route, I suggest the attachment title be PASS (emerge info) or FAIL (emerge info); easier to parse the attachment list. Also allows you to process email by just the subject header. Suits me. Well, I do think the report of the configuration the AT had at the time of the test should be held as close as possible to the place where it has relevance. As far as this point is concerned, having it as an attachment is fine. Having it posted on some website somewhere else as others have suggested is a bad idea, I think. Back to the attachments solution, then. I don't understand how you're getting many pages in one email - surely each report by an AT is a separate comment and hence a separate email, looking like: From: Mr Test Subject: Stabilisation of CPV Works Great!!!1omg emerge info: 40 lines and that's all. If it's of no interest to you, surely you just use delete and next rather than mark read and next, whatever they are in your email reader. It's 40 lines too many. That's the problem, both on bugs.g.o and in my mailbox. To be honest, what goes on for stabilisation bugs isn't of any direct concern to me as I don't involve myself in stabilisation, but if you change the rule there it's likely to be the rule across all of bugzilla and then it does concern me. I explained from the outset that this change pertains to stabilisation bugs. If you are not an arch dev, then why are you taking the opposite side in a discussion of stabilisation bugs which by their very nature only pertain to arch devs? I sure hope you didn't just knee jerk when you read the message subject. Here is the original first sentence of the first message in this thread: I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. Any more questions? :-/ Another idea is for ATs to attach emerge info if the package passes for them, but in-line it if it fails. If the package fails on one arch for a given set of USE/FEATURES, other arches may well be interested to check if the failure also affects them. If it fails, the AT should open a separate bug and make the stabilisation bug depend on it. You said so yourself: Stabilisation bugs shouldn't be doing problem resolution; if a bug is found during stabilisation testing it should be raised as a normal bug and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug. I absolutely agree with this. I assume now that you agree with me that debugging info, including `emerge info`, should *never* be inlined in, or even attached to, stabilisation bugs. Kind regards, JeR [1] Note that I am aware that not all other-arch devs might experience inline `emerge info` for other arches as annoying. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 16:46 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: N -1 arch dev's comfort against N arch devs' annoyance[1]. big snip [1] Note that I am aware that not all other-arch devs might experience inline `emerge info` for other arches as annoying. I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are USE-flag related more than architecture specific. As I said, the best solution that I can see to do *both* reducing junk and still keeping the information inline is to have the ATs only add emerge --info on failures, and to just mention the architecture and *relevant USE on success. ex. 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 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. 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. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:27:29 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even
emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a
great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are
USE-flag related more than architecture specific. As I said, the best
solution that I can see to do *both* reducing junk and still keeping
the information inline is to have the ATs only add emerge --info on
failures, and to just mention the architecture and *relevant USE on
success.
And do you propose ATs still attach `emerge info` in this solution?
ex.
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.
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.
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.
Kind regards,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ex.
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.
Heck no, I'd spend a few weeks just testing for example php. That's
deranged at its best and insane at the worst. The request as put out
to the arch testers is to use the system like they use any system,
just that they only run x86, amd64 other packages except for what they
are going to be testing. As far as features go we ask that they run
the same as a developer should, test collision-protect on top of what
is already added by default. Keywords is not useful for the arch teams
as we know that the AT's run $arch and not ~$arch. However at least
saying x86 okie with me here would be a requirement
I still think failures should be reported in separate bugs, as they are
likely to cause lots more information to be passed.
Kind regards,
JeR
Actually, one thing that you might not know is that quite a few of the
archtesters are capable programmers, they've tested a build that
failed and went about submitting a patch that would fix the issue
right there on the stabilization bug. Now you might want to say why
are they not developers yet. Part of that is probably, because they
haven't been approached by a developer yet, the second is that some
can't dedicate more time then what they are doing currently to help
the project, and that is alright. They are helping the arch teams
immensely and I'm thankful for them taking their own time to be doing
what they are doing. I might not always say thank you on the bugs,
however I feel it everyday.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE3K8uSENan+PfizARAlacAJ4mb/pTvX119A+41a0qVG8SE3IrcQCfaOSn
iMxOOBGJCXGxZfU+4BeB3Zg=
=fbsi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] new svncache.eclass
See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141806 Provides caching and release tag support for SVN. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: new svncache.eclass
Mark Stier wrote: See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141806 Provides caching and release tag support for SVN. sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please instead modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do? Best regards, Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new svncache.eclass
sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please instead modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do? I could if I'd see any reason for that. Best regards, Mark -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new svncache.eclass
Mark Stier wrote: sorry - I do not see the need for a new eclass here. Can you please instead modify the subversion eclass and add support for what you want to do? I could if I'd see any reason for that. Going the opposite way, you duplicate much of svn.eclass for one piece of functionality that could just as easily be included in svn.eclass Also you copied a bit too much; the eclass attached to the bug has EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_unpack however it never defines it's own unpack func[1]. [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:36:35 +0200: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:56:18 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [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[] 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. I was thinking CFLAGS and the like. You mentioned in a different post CFLAGS changing fairly often. I wasn't thinking of those, but with that in mind, I see your point and have changed my mind. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Should patches sit withing the portage tree ?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 23:04:19 +0200 Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm interested in arguments whether patches should sit directly | within the portage tree or downloaded when needed. | | My feeling: downloading on demand is better. | | + makes the tree smaller, saves space, saves network traffic | - downloading lots of patches may take a little bit | | What do you think ? I think you should look back at all the previous times this issue has been discussed on this list. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments to [STABLE] bugs
Chris Gianelloni wrote: 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. *ding* it's also nice to have that information actually _in_ my mailbox and not of at the end of some attachment URL, considering i'm offline 5 days of the week. i've been in this situation a few times now, where i've needed an attachment from a bug i'm working on and had to wait half a week to do anything with it. yeah i'm a corner case, and needing an AT's emerge --info isn't that common, but why cut these corners when we don't have to? especially since the reason for doing so is to save someone from having to actually scroll a mouse wheel or hit delete, or be bothered with getting an email when a AT posts their info in a comment (which you'll still get if they do it as an attachment anyways). --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
