<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39858 >

Jason Short wrote:
>> [wsimpson - Wed Nov 14 23:58:10 2007]:
>> That's a *BUG* in the SDL client!!!
> Perhaps, but fixing bugs like that should take second precedence to
> fixing crashes.  And SDL client patches are in general outside of my
> scope, whereas the text.c code I am intimately familiar with.
That's a bug in SDL that causes a crash.  It is/was not a bug in text.c.

>> Finally, you did it to all branches, without waiting for review.
> This is justified for a simple crash-fix patch.
It would have been, had you fixed the SDL bug that caused the crash....

This is one of the things that drives me crazy about the state of the
code base.  In presence of a crash, the first suggested patch was to stop
detecting the bad pointer -- a deliberate "sanity check" clearly labeled
as such.  The second patch (deployed without review) was to an intermediate
routine to bypass the bad pointer.

Step back, look at the root cause of a crash, not the proximal cause.  Read
the traceback from the trunk, not the branch.

(And it's not just you, Marko has done the same thing repeatedly.  Maybe
that's why I'm getting peeved.  I expect more from experienced folks that
have long-term involvement with the project.)

>> But fixing the SDL client bug itself would be best....
> Yeah. I still don't think the text.c function should crash if given a
> bad tile though.

There other technique for handling bad callers would be an error message
for the developers....

>   And as a player I don't know if no popup is better
> than a semi-informative one that might be of (small) use to new players.
But that would be an informed decision after discussion about how all the
clients should behave.  After all, this didn't change the other clients.

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to