11:25 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Jess Hampshire wrote:
In message
<20080729112922.37ac9cee(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> Please do not email us log files from crashed sessions of NetSurf with
> zero context. We did not request the log, as suggested in your
> subject line, nor any of the previous dozen. It is not helpful in the
I suspect that is his (reasonable) interpretation of the error box.
> least, and wastes our and your time. Please either use the bug tracker,
> or report issues on this mailing list. You may be requested to send us
> the log file /after/ you have done this.
Perhaps you could replace the error message with something as clear as
this posting?
Clearly Rob's posting wasn't clear enough, seeing as you've missed the
point of it :)
The issue is not that bugs are being reported -- we're very grateful for
that. It is, instead, that a Log file on its own does not constitute a
bug report. There are many things the Log file can tell us, but a
description of the exact things the user was doing when the fault occurred
can often be equally, if not more, useful.
The bug tracker, despite its faults, does at least result in some context
being given. So far, the bugs@ mail alias has not (even when we've replied
to mails sent to that address asking for context). Therefore, we've shut
it down until such time as a better solution is forthcoming.
John.
7:43 a.m.
New subject: Report attached as requested
In message <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0807301014520.16584(a)uglogin.ecs.soton.ac.uk
John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org>
wrote:
Clearly Rob's posting wasn't clear enough, seeing as
you've missed the
point of it :)
Or I've not made my point clearly.
My take on the situation is that the log being discussed was sent in
direct response to the request that Netsurf itself makes when it dies.
The issue is not that bugs are being reported -- we're very
grateful for
that. It is, instead, that a Log file on its own does not constitute a
bug report. There are many things the Log file can tell us, but a
description of the exact things the user was doing when the fault occurred
can often be equally, if not more, useful.
The bug tracker, despite its faults, does at least result in some context
being given. So far, the bugs@ mail alias has not (even when we've replied
to mails sent to that address asking for context). Therefore, we've shut
it down until such time as a better solution is forthcoming.
Could you not embed the questions you want answered at the top of the
log file? (and put the reporting address underneath, so at least the
user has to read the questions about context first.)
You could even put chevrons in front of the questions so it looks like
an email.
--
Jess
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
11:55 a.m.
New subject: Report attached as requested
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:43:18 +0100
Jess Hampshire <jesshampshire(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
In message
<Pine.LNX.4.62L.0807301014520.16584(a)uglogin.ecs.soton.ac.uk
>
John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> Clearly Rob's posting wasn't clear enough, seeing as you've missed
> the point of it :)
Or I've not made my point clearly.
My take on the situation is that the log being discussed was sent in
direct response to the request that Netsurf itself makes when it dies.
No. NetSurf requests that people file a bug report, and attach the
log. Just sending a log with no context what-so-ever does not
constitute a bug report. It does not help us fix bugs. It will not
make the browser more stable for you. It doesn't help anyone at all.
B.
12:41 p.m.
New subject: Report attached as requested
On 2 Aug 2008 Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:43:18 +0100
Jess Hampshire <jesshampshire(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> My take on the situation is that the log being discussed was sent
in
> direct response to the request that Netsurf itself makes when it dies.
No. NetSurf requests that people file a bug report, and attach the
log. Just sending a log with no context what-so-ever does not
constitute a bug report. It does not help us fix bugs. It will not
make the browser more stable for you. It doesn't help anyone at all.
I've had numerous occasions on which NetSurf has spontaneously crashed
when I've tried to quit it or shut down the system or when I'm doing
something else altogether. It's very difficult to give very much
contextual information, but the log should give you some idea of what
ultimately caused the crash (usually but not always a segmentation
fault), what pages were last visited, what objects were last requested
and what various registers were pointing to.
I agree that the tracker is the place to report such problems despite
it's irritating login problems. However apart from the management
capabilities it provides, including the ability to add further
information, it's not really that different from an email message with
a subject (summary), body (description) and attachment (log). In fact
email doesn't normally choke on attachments over 300 kBytes!
--
_
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
|\_||_ mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
12:44 p.m.
New subject: Report attached as requested
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:41:26 +0100
Richard Porter <ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
I've had numerous occasions on which NetSurf has spontaneously
crashed when I've tried to quit it or shut down the system or when
I'm doing something else altogether. It's very difficult to give very
much contextual information, but the log should give you some idea of
what ultimately caused the crash (usually but not always a
segmentation fault), what pages were last visited, what objects were
last requested and what various registers were pointing to.
Sure, but often they're huge and nearly impossible to extract that soft
of information out of usefully. Knowing which site you were visiting
is fabulously useful. The developers know what's useful to them, and
just the log is not.
I agree that the tracker is the place to report such problems despite
it's irritating login problems. However apart from the management
capabilities it provides, including the ability to add further
information, it's not really that different from an email message
with a subject (summary), body (description) and attachment (log). In
fact email doesn't normally choke on attachments over 300 kBytes!
It's very different from an email message, for reasons we've discussed
at length already.
(Incidentally, I hope to get started in Lurgi, our new BTS, this
weekend. I'll be developing it with NetSurf in mind and testing it
almost exclusively with NetSurf in the hope we can abandon the last of
SourceForge's functionality that we use.)
B.
1:17 p.m.
New subject: Report attached as requested
In article <20080802114434.7dbf1401@necrosis>, Rob Kendrick
<rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:41:26 +0100 Richard Porter
<ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
[Snip apparent confusion about clarity of bug submission message]
Perhaps it would be helpful to everyone if the error message spat out by
NetSurf told the reporter exactly what please they should do.
--
Tim Hill,
www.timil.com
5608
days inactive
5611
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jess Hampshire -
John-Mark Bell -
Richard Porter -
Rob Kendrick -
Tim Hill