And just respawning when we crash is taping over bugs, too. I am not
generally opposed to it, though.
I think you need to meditate upon the Rule of Repair for a while:
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878538
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878538
Bugs happen. The manner in which you recover from them is the difference between getting useful bug reports and getting flamed to hell and back on every mailing list and blog in existence and making the entire distribution look bad.
And there's the matter of appropriateness. Forcing users to stop and deal with bugs makes sense in, say, rawhide. People should not be *forced* to play QA in a stable release. They just want to Get Their Shit Done.
However I fear it won't help much
since PA's state is lost and thus all music would stop playing
anyway.
This situation seems entirely recoverable to me. Why can't the clients wait around and simply reconnect to the daemon and continue when it comes back again? Sure, there would be a temporary glitch. Temporary is good. A temporary glitch is far preferable to permanent brokenness, like things just no longer working with no indication of what happened or how to proceed to fix it. A temporary glitch is ignorable. Yet it is still a glitch, so a user with time on their hands can make the *choice* to stop and investigate further. Taking away that choice takes away the user's control. Taking control away from the user makes the user unhappy. Unhappy users go out on mailing lists and blogs and endlessly flame you.
To wit:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000057.html
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
