On 2012-11-01, at 21:30, Ricky wrote:
> Well, all I have is anecdotal evidence from my own family of four, everyone
> an SL user: we all keep multiple versions of the SL viewer, and even a few
> TPVs, on our machines. If one viewer crashes it's more often that the person
> it crashes on will r
Well, all I have is anecdotal evidence from my own family of four, everyone
an SL user: we all keep multiple versions of the SL viewer, and even a few
TPVs, on our machines. If one viewer crashes it's more often that the
person it crashes on will relog in another version or viewer - just to
avoid
Wouldn't this only be an issue, normally, for people switching from one the
viewer to another, where there was an leftover crash filer from the older
viewer? Doesn't seem like leaving these events out would cause significant
deviation.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Ricky wrote:
> Wouldn't it
Wouldn't it be better if the crash could be reported anyway - just marking
the correct version? With this in place at least crashes won't be
misreported, but they also will be not reported to the servers at all,
causing statistical deviation - what I believe is the core idea to be
fixed. More com
On 2012-10-30 10:48 , Hitomi Tiponi wrote:
As day 10 is approaching of the next dev viewer build being 'in
progress' I am filled with anticipation at the goodies it must contain
to take so long to build. Or is it stuck again and no-one noticed?
No... we're focused on the problems in beta, s
