From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:54:33 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-09-30 In-Reply-To: <20141001182322.53f6fd68@free-electrons.com> References: <20141001063012.7DD7A100CC7@stock.ovh.net> <20141001075116.7913ff52@core2quad.morethan.org> <20141001182322.53f6fd68@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <542D12C9.80202@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:51:16 -0500, Mike Zick wrote: ... >> Now the noise: >> >> I have noticed that recently some of the fix contributors >> have been including a "few line" quote of a typical error >> message in addition to the "fix(es): url" comment. >> >> As a read-mostly member, I find that new (habit? practice?) >> very helpful when reading the daily M.L. fix messages. >> >> Q: >> Should there be a discussion on making this additional >> information a BR "recommended practice" ? > > I personally don't have a strong opinion. Since the autobuilder URLs > are stable, and supposed to be kept around forever, I don't mind seeing > only the autobuilder URL. But if the submitter decides to include a > portion of the error message, then fine as well. We could imagine that > doing this would give a better change of people googling for the error > message, to stumble across the relevant Buildroot patch rather than > just the autobuilder results. > > Not sure I want to make this a mandatory thing, though. We already have > a lot of requirements, and doing autobuilder fixes is already not that > fun, so if we raise the barrier too much, this might discourage > contributors. I appreciate when people do that. It makes the commit more self-explanatory, and it's very handy to search with git log, among other things. But I agree it should not be mandatory. -- Luca