> 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
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
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
Duncan wrote:
Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS,
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 b
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 y
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 ad
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
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-R
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
Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
> Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
>> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
>>
10 matches
Mail list logo
