Re: Making GNOME crash

[Julien Gilli <jgilli acm org>]

Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:17 +0000, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>  
>
> > Seg, 2005-11-07 �01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu:
> >    
> >
> > > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > I'm not convinced that making HEAD unusable for everybody by enforcing
> > > this in gnome-session is the way forward. For one thing, it will
> > > drastically reduce the amount of testing that HEAD gets. I think making
> > > this the focus of a Gnome love day can have the same results without
> > > affecting the testability of HEAD for everybody else.
> > >      
> >  I completely agree.  This reminds me of some modules in the past
> > having hardcoded -Werror in CFLAGS.  Some people just want to compile
> > and run GNOME, not be forced into fixing every module in the way.
> >
> >    
> Actually GStreamer do this, include -Werror, and it is in my opinion
> something which has worked out very well for us. 
I think (correct me if i'm wrong, please) the point that Matthias and 
Gustavo make is that a lot of  people won't take the time needed to test 
a GNOME desktop that crashes earlier, because they won't be able to fix 
the problems as quickly as they'd want. Maybe, in the long term, people 
would get unwilling to test HEAD because it would be impossible for 
them. This would be a great loss for mass testing of non-blocker bugs. 
This point of view makes sense to me.

Just my two cents.

--
Julien Gilli