poll: who really uses mutter?

[Martin Pool]

On  4 Jul 2006, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 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.

OK, thanks.

> 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.

Yes, I think at the moment it can be hard to find out what caused a
plugin to fail to load.  I'll do something about that too.

-- 
Martin