From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 22:03:42 GMT
Hi everyone and especially Dom,
I'm very sorry to hear about these problems. I thought i had
nailed every bug and in fact on my hardware, I no longer get any crashes.
Including all the ones listed here - excpet for the command line printing
- which I can fix pretty quickly.
I gather people are running pristine CVS?
Regarding removing the incremental loader, I think I can disable it while
leaving everything else in place - however before then I ask you to please
run abiword and email me the stack trace upon crash. I think given this
info I can fix all the remaining problems within a couple of days - by
Monday your time at the latest. If not I'll disable it for 1.0.
Cheers
Martin
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I *really* don't want to step on anyone's toes here, especially
> Martin's, whom I told to check this in. This is some tremendous work and
> I certainly don't want to just throw away weeks' worth of hard work. I
> *really* love the incremental loader...
>
> when it is fully working, that is. My current problem is that after the
> new incremental loader, I and others have experienced a great deal of
> problems that we hadn't before then, including but not limited to:
>
> 1) Unexplained crashes on document load
> 2) Unexplained hanging on document load
> 3) Unexplained crashes on zooming
> 4) Unexplained exiting if closing 1 window while another doc is opening
> 5) Inability to print from the command line any more, mostly due to a
> lack of an XAP_Frame to call nullUpdate() on while loading the doc.
>
> The worst part of #s 1-4 is that they are non-deterministic, though not
> hard to reproduce for us. "If at first you don't fail, try, try again."
> If these sorts of behavior aren't reproducible for you, then it's all
> the more frustrating.
>
> So I'm kindly asking that these changes be backed out for 1.0, if
> possible, and maintained in a separate patch or branch to be worked on
> and included at some later date. My reasoning is fairly simple - I'd
> rather have 1 known bug that is annoying yet tolerable (non-incremental
> loads) rather than a plethora of unknown bugs that basically render the
> product useless for me and others. I'd rather let this bug get pushed to
> post 1.0 than to have all of these new ones open so late in the
> development cycle, especially since these are potentially harder to
> identify and fix too.
>
> Alternately, a "magic bullet" bug-fix would also be appreciated. Martin,
> I would very much like to hear your opinion on this. We could delay 1.0
> until the incremental loader is working 100%, but I personally would
> rather not do that.
>
> Cheers,
> Dom
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 17:07:35 GMT