On Tuesday 31 March 2009 14:07:15 Anders Rayner-Karlsson wrote: > * Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970@xxxxxxxxx> [20090331 14:34]: > > On Tuesday 31 March 2009 13:23:05 Anders Rayner-Karlsson wrote: > > > And the BZ's for this observed behaviour are...? > > > > Why don't you go search yourself? > > Because I am not the one experiencing or complaining about this > behaviour. If you are seeing undesirable and broken behaviour by an > application or by the X server itself, requiring you to resort to this > type of behaviour as provided by C-A-Bs - filing bugs against the > parts broken springs to mind as being on the agenda. > > As such - you'd know what bugs you have filed, and you'd be able to > provide the BZ id's. > > I on the other hand, have not seen the behaviour, don't know which > application you are running that causes the behaviour and therefore > are not in a particularly good position to locate the BZ's. > > I thought this was a fairly straight forward path of thought, but it > seems I was incorrect. Now, you are being deliberately rude. > > > That is entirely possible. I did a straw poll among my technical > > > colleagues (and included a Senior Director for good measure) and > > > the only one that uses C-A-Bs (due to flaws in suspend/resume) is > > > the Senior Director. No-one else could find a reason to retain > > > C-A-Bs as enabled by default. > > > > That flaw might not be easily fixed; and in the meantime, until it's > > fixed, what should he do? > > Re-enable it, or was that really non-trivial to think of? *confused* **** off with the "really non-trivial to think of" crap please. It's not easy to re-enable something *when you discover you need it* if it's been disabled, is it? > The term "reproducer" springs to mind. If you don't know exactly what > it is that breaks, you can still describe how to get there. A bug > report with a reproducer is better than no bug filed at all, and being > able to run sosreport and putting together a bulleted list with, for > example: > * start application A > * start application B > * move Application A's window so it completely obscures application > B's window > -> X hangs solid Yes, and it if't not trivially reproducable, they shouldn't be able to find any way out of it? It's not always trivial to reproduce things. Please don't assume that your 99% of people without problems automatically means it's the fault of the remaining 1% if it breaks. > There's a very good chance that someone will be able to a) reproduce > the issue, b) fix it. No, there is rarely a "good chance" unless it's an easy-to-trip case. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
