RFC: remove traceback from "newer branch format than your bzr"

[Alexander Belchenko]

John Arbash Meinel пишет:
> Eric Siegerman wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 15:14 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> Strack traces are the equivalent of segmentation faults in Bazaar,
>>> when they are displayed there is *always* a bug, never expected
>>> behaviour. 
>> To amplify on this, the goal (as this non-bzr-developer
>> understands it; please correct and/or clarify if appropriate), is
>> that users should *never* receive tracebacks.  If you get one,
>> it's a bug in bzr.
> 
>> Sometimes, a traceback indicates a situation that "should never
>> occur" (i.e. the bug lies in whatever caused the situation in the
>> first place).
> 
>> Other times, as in this case, it's an error condition that *can*
>> occur in (more or less) normal use, but is not being properly
>> handled when it does (i.e. the bug is in the error-handling code
>> itself).  Examples would be network problems, version mismatches,
>> user errors, etc.  All of those are to be expected from time to
>> time, but none should result in a traceback.
> 
> 
> Another possibility is to never show tracebacks but integrate better
> with apport. Which could allow us to save the traceback off to the side,
> and gives a nice prompt to the user to submit this stuff to launchpad.

apport works on Windows?

> 
> John
> =:->
>