Seg, 2005-11-07 às 17:39 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller escreveu: > On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:17 +0000, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote: > > Seg, 2005-11-07 às 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu: > > > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug > > > > flag for the G_DEBUG environment variable: fatal_criticals. This make > > > > the program crash on critical warnings. > > > > > > > > I propose to use this nice feature during the development cycles to help > > > > eradicate all these critical warnings. I made a simple patch for > > > > gnome-session: > > > > http://www.gnome.org/~vuntz/tmp/gnome-session.diff > > > > > > > > Why? Well, we currently have critical warnings in a lot of modules. And > > > > we don't care since we don't notice them. With this, we could easily > > > > notice them and have nice stack traces to fix them. This should result > > > > in less bugs. > > > > > > > > Does it make the desktop unusable? Well, the wncklet-applet crashes [1], > > > > it seems bug-buddy crashes on Fedora [2] and, err, I can't use > > > > evolution ;-) More crashes are expected, but I think the sooner we fix > > > > the critical warnings, the better. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149326 with a patch > > > > [2] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=320062 > > > > > > > > Vincent > > > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced that making HEAD unusable for everybody by enforcing > > > this in gnome-session is the way forward. For one thing, it will > > > drastically reduce the amount of testing that HEAD gets. I think making > > > this the focus of a Gnome love day can have the same results without > > > affecting the testability of HEAD for everybody else. > > > > I completely agree. This reminds me of some modules in the past > > having hardcoded -Werror in CFLAGS. Some people just want to compile > > and run GNOME, not be forced into fixing every module in the way. > > > Actually GStreamer do this, include -Werror, and it is in my opinion > something which has worked out very well for us. Yes, it was a bit > painful to get it working to begin with and it was a bit painful > when gcc4 came out, but in general it means that we keep our code > warning free, which I think has kept a lot of bugs from creeping in > which would otherwise have been drowned in a sea of 'harmless' warnings.
Oh, this is all fine for _GStreamer_, but bad for _GNOME_, because this sends away potencial GNOME contributors since it's simply too difficult to build it. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think it was selfish of the GStreamer project to have -Werror in the makefiles. > > It isn't painful today as we catch new compile warnings right away, so > fixing those isn't more painful than making sure your code follows > module conventions and is acceptable in general. > > I don't know how this crash thing would turn out/work, but if it means > we will have 3-4 painful weeks and after that have a GNOME with a lot of > crasher bugs fixed then I am all for it. Cause after that new crashers > will be caught as they are introduced which probably also is the time > when its easy to fix them. (probably me being to naive though) This could also mean that developers start thinking twice before adding a g_warning, and start using g_message instead, thus defeating is purpose. g_warning is for reporting real problems, but no critical ones; for critical problems we have g_error. It's so easy to turn on abort on warnings, just run your program with: $ G_DEBUG=all ./myprogram or even: $ ./myprogram --g-fatal-warnings Only lazy developers let g_warnings go on indefinitely. We need to educate developers, that's all. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The universe is always one step beyond logic. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list