jan.wine at zerebecki.de
Tue May 22 21:36:46 CDT 2007
I'll ask what the progress is with our Bugzilla upgrade when
the one who offered this comes online again.
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:25:40PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Robert Shearman <rob at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> >Searching for "Unhandled exception" is too hard?
> Not all bugs have a proper trace, not all crashes result in the
> unhandled exception message (100% cpu usage being one case), not all
> bugs say crash (some say hang, or stuck, 100% cpu usage, freeze, etc).
> So If we had a crash keyword, then as people look at the new bugs, it
> can be added. Then people who are looking for crashes to fix or at
> least debug further (as I do), can find those bugs easier.
I would consider neither of hang, stuck, 100% cpu usage, freeze
to be a crash.
I think that regardless of the result of the bug it might be
useful to check that it gets debugged.
So we might distinguish two boolean variables for bugs:
- (1) Has it all the information that can be provided (e.g.
crash log and back-trace with debug symbols)? This would also
contain checking that all the fields are properly set.
- (2) Do we know the cause for the bug? ( E.g. for a
segmentation fault AKA crash in the application, do we know
what in Wine caused it? )
Should we include in (1) if it can be reproduced independently?
More information about the wine-devel