From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DD51F4B4 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232777AbhDHWZu (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:25:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:53183 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232404AbhDHWZu (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:25:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06DB11739D; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:25:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=WrxKrqhM7QJy 2HG9TP246twI6z8=; b=BPcpfVcf7CQJ7Hyg1hAEJTCKaZ83kP+9qRVE6j9Hy388 xbyYCvBQHl3wc9hAIXzSHoE0HMyl83QI/fvmlfpSfXn1P8quBsGhZySa0F/VGP0v hcQ+AbZv4cRqNtgdK8Uycs+LfCY+eyjHnFMEpkp66bs2jJt5mISWxgx3HW0ZyCE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=QiWmpT SCFNrWwmD/E6OolgcTs/XGr18vfPR2f6C0OhF4RhD+oaRPMA3C4laViHTmh+q7e5 gBGMr8sfXOuIGW97YYqEjZ5kDDpdz7CpEXynjE6p2iMM2VAIhySxC5oWlSgB/0bv fJJafCEMT8frY9MuAqjgG6vFZMZ/jrAyuW6TY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B933611739C; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:25:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.243.138.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A010117398; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:25:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Emily Shaffer , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/5] bugreport: add uname info References: <20200416211807.60811-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200416211807.60811-5-emilyshaffer@google.com> <87mtu8ifmj.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 15:25:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87mtu8ifmj.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:19:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 56FA8B34-98B9-11EB-ACE9-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > On Thu, Apr 16 2020, Emily Shaffer wrote: > >> The contents of uname() can give us some insight into what sort of >> system the user is running on, and help us replicate their setup if ne= ed >> be. The domainname field is not guaranteed to be available, so don't >> collect it. > > Even with _GNU_SOURCE would anyone care about the domainname (the NIS/Y= P > name, not DNS) these days, as opposed to the portable POSIX "nodename" > field you're not including? > > In any case, I'd think it's a good idea to omit both. People tend not t= o > want to want to include their FQDN (e.g. their employer), and I can't > think of a reason we'd care about it for debugging git. > >> [...] >> + strbuf_addf(sys_info, "%s %s %s %s\n", >> + uname_info.sysname, >> + uname_info.release, >> + uname_info.version, >> + uname_info.machine); > > Since this is completely free-form I'd think: > > "sysname: %s\nrelease: %s\nversion: %s\nmachine: %s\nnodename: %s\n= domainname: %s\n", > > Or something like that would be better (after pruning out the fields we > don't care about). All true. By the way, what's this sudden interest in re-reviewing an age old topic?