On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:20:24PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:13:56PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 01:50:26PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> I have another small code review. This fixes a couple of transport >>>> issues, a traceback in the CLI, and provides more information when we >>>> fail assertions in the progress tracker. The total change here is less >>>> than 100 lines. >>>> >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~johansen/webrev-10411/ >>> progress.py: >>> >>> - Is the base ProgressTracker class the right place to put messaging? I >>> would expect this to go in FancyUNIXPT and CommandLinePT, but not the >>> others. This raises the question of whether FUPT should inherit from >>> CLPT. >> >> Given that the traceback from failing the assertion is going to go to >> stderr, I assumed that it wouldn't be a problem to have the actual >> numbers get printed there too. Am I missing something? > > The GUI.
That's not a helpful answer. Every time we get bugs reported against the GUI that might actually be in the api, we tell people to re run the command and either capture the stacktrace that the GUI dumps to a terminal window, or reproduce the problem in the CLI. Has the GUI stopped printing tracebacks to stderr? -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
