From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8183D138C9D for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46250E08B1; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55674E086A for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E6B3340D0E for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:20:46 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input! Message-ID: <20150426182046.0ef76a2e@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: References: <201504112150.13880.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <1430042363.29685.8.camel@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.27; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 22fa5391-b44e-4918-9721-5075df045e2c X-Archives-Hash: f1bc90b8e1dab0a9bc5100ca840533ad On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:04:11 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > > Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting > > for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be > > parsed. > > > > For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing > by a computer program? Both. If the Summary is structured properly, YOU can parse a list of Summaries quicker[1] and a MACHINE can parse it more reliably. > If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into > fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we > then have to carefully break back down? We might as well start > sticking xml in the summary. Now you're breaking the human interface with XML. > If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how > variation makes your life more difficult today? I'm just trying to > understand what we're trying to fix... Reading through hundreds of Summaries. If the atoms and the request variant are always in the same place, parsing by humans is MUCH quicker. Why do I feel I keep pointing out the obvious (for around ten years already)? Kind regards, jer [1] Especially when it doesn't contain fluff like "please" or the umpteenth variant on "stable".