Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:35:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To PR Senders Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408201926140.6833-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <20040821001142.GO5433@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Ceri Davies wrote: > Pulling down a patch via fetch or similar is basically a PITA when they > need follow ups in the PR, and I would rather see patches in GNATS for > pretty much everything. I'd have to agree -- the key item being that the more eyes that see it initially, the more people will probably comment on it/submit patches. However, if something is of very limited interest and is large (200k lines of whitespace patches), then it should probably be in a URL. On checking, it seems that most ports PRs are <20k. A few are huge, and sometimes that's because someone attaches (e.g.) a config.log. I'd rather see huge files like that, that may be very specific to one installation and possibly even transient, not be in GNATS. However, kernel tracebacks do need to be included for the kern PRs to be useful; but 'syncing disks 1 1 1 ...' is just wasted space. We should probably come up with a hard limit above which you should not put it into GNATS. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0408201926140.6833-100000>