poll: who really uses mutter?

Martin Pool mbp at canonical.com
Wed Jul 5 02:43:14 BST 2006

On  4 Jul 2006, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

> I use mutter a little, but mostly for debugging. And only in the short-term.
> I was pleased to see readv collapsed ?? actually start reporting a
> number greater than one. But that is a small thing.

Right, but it's not something that's going to be interesting to most
people, or in most bug reports.

> >  - 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
> As long as they are always present in the test suite logs. When you
> stopped reporting tracebacks in report_exception() it makes debugging
> much more painful, because now the log line is just "bzr ERROR: EPERM",
> with no indication of where that was occurring. (I hacked around it by
> just commenting out those lines while I was debugging).
> I would also recommend that we revert some of my changes to selftest,
> which put repr(stderr) into the log file. The log file is declared as
> utf8, which means it might not be possible to represent certain outputs.
> But repr() is *really* hard to read when debugging.
> I think stdout/stderr are now properly defined as bytestreams (at least
> if the command goes through self.outf). Which means they should already
> be encoded by the time we want to write it to the log file.

Yes, I'm just looking at some of those things now.  


More information about the bazaar mailing list