Thorsten Haude wrote:
At 2007-08-02 20:16 -0400 you write:
for a few months now, [...] once a week, I get a spontaneous shutdown.
At 2007-08-02 07:13 you write:
Added OpenMotif 2.3 to stable list.
Now for SF's broken date I don't know which happened first but I would
think that the former would preclude the latter.
The subtext here is "Why didn't you mark OM 2.3 it unstable?" You could
just ask directly, I can take it. I do try to apply the same stability
criteria to LessTif as OpenMotif, but I may be wrong. I'm happy to
explain why.
So:
I added it to the stable list fairly quickly after installing it in my
own CVS area, after verifying that it didn't die in two minutes of
actual use (as is typical for most bum LessTif versions). That was far
before the commit date.
That's my personal protocol marking *any* Motif bad: if I can fairly
quickly crash or hang it, with some repeatable user action. So
OpenMotif got a pass here.
LessTif has benefited from this. There have been plenty of times I've
witnessed a strange crash in LessTif, but not tagged it unstable -
because it was very difficult to reproduce as well.
If I used the "ever crashed at all" as criteria, then pretty much all
versions LessTif and Motif would be marked bad. It's difficult to say
sometimes what's an nedit bug and what's a toolkit bug sometimes. Just
because Motif X crashes and Y does not, doesn't mean Y is right,
sometimes it is our fault!
After banging on OM 2.3 for a months, that motif.c file was committed.
Hence the dates you see.
--
NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected]
http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
