lcer - lunar compile error report (simplifying support)

[Auke Kok]

Duncan Gibson wrote:
> Duncan:
>>> 1. most users who get to #lunar usually only need a hint to get going,
>>>    there aren't that many who are asked for compile logs, etc.
>>>    lcer.sh is still a good idea to be able to get the information.
> 
> Ratler:
>> On the contrary, I often find it necessary to ask for the compile log,
>> or at least the last 100 rows or so. I like the idea anyway.
> 
> I bow to your greater experience and wisdom :-)
> 
> Duncan:
>>> 2. Why does it have to be part of lunar/theedge? Can't it be a module
>>>    on its own? The user asks on #lunar, someone says 'lin lcer' and
>>>    then run 'lver module' and we'll have a look.
> 
> Ratler:
>> I think it would fit even better into lunar-tools.
> 
> Ah! I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant, "why does it have to
> be part of lunar/theedge *NOW* while it is being developed?" lcer could
> start out as a standalone module while it was being debugged, which would
> avoid any problems integrating it into lunar/theedge, or needing someone
> to wave the dead goat on sofar's behalf. In the long term I agree that
> it should be part of the lunar tools.

there are several clean solutions to this problem:

- design a 'crash' feedback tool as a lunar plugin

- keep the plugin outside of lunar/lunar-tools for now (so devs can 
test/evaluate it). Later when it's stable and easy to understand, merge 
the plugin in to lunar-tools.

- have the plugin submit all compile failures, download failures 
automatically (or not) based on a user setting


> 
> Duncan:
>>> It's a bit like sofar's module submission queue and review system. It's
>>> a good idea, but really needs more people to use it...
> 
> Ratler:
>> Sofars idea is great, it's just the implementation from the developers
>> side that should be easier. Right now it's to much of an effort to work
>> through the queue, but that's in my opinion. That's why there are so few
>> of the developers using it. I for one love the fact that we let the
>> users assist us. If we make it even more simple I'm sure most devs would
>> come to love it.
> 
> I like sofar's module submission system and queue page. It's much better
> than user contributions going past on the mailing list and then getting
> forgotten about. However, it's unfortunate that a developer has to login
> to doppio to be able to run the review script, when most of the submissions
> probably require testing on a local desktop first. From my experience, it
> makes for a bit of a weird workflow, but I can't see how to improve it:
> http://wiki.lunar-linux.org/index.php/Module_Submission_for_developers

I wonder if we can have the submissions entered in to a git-managed 
queue. This way developers can pull/push in that queue remotely.

this is a bit different than a crash-report system, which should just be 
a 'dump' of reports, nothing more. Kinda like kerneloops.org.


Auke