On 21/06/10 09:38, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Any comments (other than 'show me the money/code') ?
I don't see a benefit of that... When a build fails, it kills all
other current builds of other architectures, so you need to check that
architecture, that fails first and the diff would not contain the error.
good point. But reality might be different:
The x86_64 build failed, and is says that the i686 was cancelled.
However, the build.log shows that the package and -debuginfo .rpms were
created, ie the build actually succeeded. This seems like a bug in the
koji web interface.
Having the non-failing build be cancelled may not be optimal; I have
definitely found it helpful to compare the build logs of different
archs, when one succeeds (or at least gets further). It helps to see the
diff in log results to understand what is different about the process
between each build.
Other that that. The diff would show, different which different
packages are installed, e.g. gcc.i386 instead of gcc.x86_64, which
doesn't interest me either...
(And different requires etc.)
That would be more bonus points for the diff to
optionally ignore !
A decent visual diff will highlight lines that are different, but also
show the actual characters that differ (I don't know if viewvc can do that).
What would be the benefit of such a feature?
problems more quickly:
- what changed in the build process from arch to arch ...
- what changed in the bp from fedora release to fedora release ...
- what changed in the bp compare to an earlier version-release ...
However, for the less experienced package maintainers: tell me shortest
time for you to determine the cause for the failure in:
Now, would these screen shots from a visual diff program have reduced
the time for working out both the error, and the cause ?