poll: who really uses mutter?

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:
> In general application debug logs are handy things.  But I'm not finding
> mutter and .bzr.log super useful at the moment, on the crucial test of
> "when something goes wrong, can you work it out just from the logs
> messages already produced".

I agree, I find the mutter output is a nuisance, not a help, when debugging.

> I have a branch where I'm trying to clean up some of the trace code.  I
> propose to 
> 
>  - prune or comment out some of the mutter calls that aren't helping
>    much
>  - not send them to .bzr.log by default?
>  - perhaps add a -D option that writes to stderr - so they're more
>    visible when debugging, and to make a pressure to remove useless
>    traces

For me, the biggest thing would be to omit them from test failure output.

Also, it seems as though we've stopped putting tracebacks in .bzr.log.
When there's no traceback displayed for an error, and it's also not in
the .bzr.log, it can be hard to debug.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEqfzj0F+nu1YWqI0RAgOvAJ9ftarER7GIZnUUNqcUjlq6UNxRhgCffp8l
hCdXQzOZrfE8q1dUi/Xa0a8=
=oSPD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----