The point I was trying to make was that this isn't just about crash dumps. For example, engineering effort will have to be done to filter them out of UMA statistics. Also, there are reentrancy issues with plugins as Darin mentioned. We know of them, but haven't bothered spending time chasing them down since we considered -in-process-plugins to be just a testing mode, not one used by users. I really don't think we want to support this kind of mode (single-process or in-process-plugins). If we do, then we will have to make sure all of our tests exercise this code (which we're not even close to). Until that point, I think it's doesn't serve our users to give (and autoupdate) builds that we're not testing.
I'm not saying it's not possible to do this, just the opportunity cost is not worth it. If anywhere near 50% of users started using whacky flags because of bugs in our code, we have major problems, and we should be fixing them instead of spending time supporting multiple modes. On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think it is so black and white. If we're going to ignore all crash > dumps that have certain cmdline flags anyway, then collecting dumps is not > interesting. > > The problem is that if 50% of our userbase ends up using some whacky flag > that causes crashes, and we don't collect the data, we could be blind to it. > I don't think this is a realistic scenario, but I can't stay it is > impossible either. > > What I do believe is: > a) We should figure out the configurations we "support". > b) If we're not going to support a particular configuration, we should > let the user know. > c) If we're not going to support a particular configuration, it needs to > be SUPER OBVIOUS in the crash dump that the configuration was an unsupported > one, so that we don't waste time on the bug. > > Proposal: > a) Put up the warning message on startup "unsupported command line > flags", as Darin suggests. > b) find a way to make go/crash generally filter out crashes which contain > dangerous cmdline flags that we don't wish to debug. > c) figure out a way to avoid having crashers for unsupported configs from > going to microsoft. > > Mike > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Maybe turn of crash reporting when these flags are enabled? >> >> >> No, this just makes life better for us, not for users. >> >> PK >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
