Re: Reintroducing critical warnings?

[Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>]

ma., 25.02.2008 kl. 22.23 +0100, skrev Kjartan Maraas:
> ma., 25.02.2008 kl. 13.47 -0500, skrev Owen Taylor:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:30 +0000, Benjamin Otte wrote:
> > > Havoc Pennington <hp <at> pobox.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Wait, that's the whole point is to crash the app 
> > > > 
> > > > The issue is that if it just prints stuff, people don't fix the bug
> > > > (in part, perhaps, because nothing goes through bug-buddy). Maybe the
> > > > fix is to bug-buddy the warning, but don't crash the app. Not sure how
> > > > hard that would be to code.
> > > > 
> > > I guess this is the age-old question of "How should we treat a non-critical bug
> > > during development?"
> > > And I guess it is equivalent to "Should we enable gcc's -Werror switch for svn
> > > builds?" which is the question I regularly clash about with Behdad.
> > > 
> > > In the end it's a tradeoff. A tradeoff between forcing users to make you care
> > > about potentially harmless stuff that's not "a real bug" (to quote Behdad) and
> > > missing real bugs because users don't care about bugs that don't bite them. It's
> > > also a tradeoff between allowing you to be lazy and not fix warnings immediately
> > > - or at least until the next gcc comes around that makes them real bugs - and
> > > having to fix obscure warnings on weird platforms immediately because they break
> > > the build or prevent the application from running.
> > 
> > Jumping in late on this conversation ... running from JHBuild I had to
> > patch out the fatal warnings, because all sorts of apps I normally use
> > *not from JHBuild* (Eclipse, Firefox, Pidgin, etc.) were dying from
> > critical warnings caused by the application code, rather than bugs in
> > the JHBuild built things.
> > 
> Filed a bug for pidgin:
> http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4917
> 
And now it's been fixed :-)
http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4917#comment:2

Cheers
Kjartan