On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Am Samstag, 18. Oktober 2014, 19:34:52 schrieb Pacho Ramos: >> > >> > Perhaps a stupid question, but: why is it a problem if the logs are >> > linked rather than attached? >> >> Supposedly we always must attach files to bug reports to ensure they are >> kept forever with that bug reports instead of relying on external >> resources that could disappear in the future (or far future). > > It isn't (in my opinion) a problem *per se* if Diego does it the way he does > it now. The reason being that *he* knows the logs should be available for a > long time afterwards and takes care of that properly. So, Diego, I'm perfectly > fine with accepting your bug reports, and I would be very glad if you also > started tinderboxing again.
++ > > Globally, on the long run it *is* not so nice to link the logs for the one > reason that we need to teach our users to attach logs instead of linking them. > (Since they do not automatically apply the same level of care.) Now if they > keep stumbling on bugs where the logs are just linked instead of attached, > this gets harder and harder. A case of "make a policy, expect everyone else to > stick to it and go ahead with a bad example". > Agree, but IMO facilitating tinderboxing TODAY is much more important than having a completely uniform policy TOMORROW, and I think you're on the same page with this. It might make sense to build a little script that goes looking for new tinderbox bugs, fetches the logs, and attaches them. This should by no means be a blocker to doing runs. If maintainers want to NEEDINFO or WONTFIX a tinderbox bug, well, they'll be the ones picking up the pieces when the gcc upgrade moves ahead. Frankly, the tinderbox bugs that I've gotten from Diego have been some of the most usefully-populated ones I've seen, and he usually includes recommendations for best-practices/etc in them as well. I don't get why anybody wouldn't like seeing them. -- Rich
