Merge lp:~mbp/bzr/417881-selftest-no-apport into lp:bzr
| Status: | Merged | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approved by: | John A Meinel on 2010-02-03 | ||||
| Approved revision: | not available | ||||
| Merged at revision: | not available | ||||
| Proposed branch: | lp:~mbp/bzr/417881-selftest-no-apport | ||||
| Merge into: | lp:bzr | ||||
| Diff against target: |
31 lines (+10/-0) 2 files modified
NEWS (+3/-0) bzrlib/builtins.py (+7/-0) |
||||
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mbp/bzr/417881-selftest-no-apport | ||||
| Related bugs: |
|
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| John A Meinel | 2010-02-03 | Approve on 2010-02-03 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2010-02-02.
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote : | # |
| John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote : | # |
I think the specific layout can get a bit into bikeshedding, but if you like the look of this layout, then lets go with it.
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote : | # |
I think I'll land this without the traceback changes and we can consider that separately.
| Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote : | # |
So I realise this has landed already, but I think its the wrong
approach ;)
Specifically, we should IMO disable apport *anyway* for development
trees - where there is a .bzr dir. That way, for selftest:
- as packaged, we get apport bug reports about selftest (good)
- as a dev environment, we don't get apport in our way (good)
-Rob
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote : | # |
On 3 February 2010 17:18, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> So I realise this has landed already, but I think its the wrong
> approach ;)
>
> Specifically, we should IMO disable apport *anyway* for development
> trees - where there is a .bzr dir. That way, for selftest:
> - as packaged, we get apport bug reports about selftest (good)
> - as a dev environment, we don't get apport in our way (good)
It's easy to change. Where do you think we should specify that
something is a development environment?
I don't think "not from a package" or "running from home" is perfect
because there are users who regularly run that way. But perhaps it is
the best tradeoff.
Alternatively we can set "debug_flags = no_apport" ourselves and
simply reverse this patch.
--
Martin <http://
| Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote : | # |
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 17:42 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 3 February 2010 17:18, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> > So I realise this has landed already, but I think its the wrong
> > approach ;)
> >
> > Specifically, we should IMO disable apport *anyway* for development
> > trees - where there is a .bzr dir. That way, for selftest:
> > - as packaged, we get apport bug reports about selftest (good)
> > - as a dev environment, we don't get apport in our way (good)
>
> It's easy to change. Where do you think we should specify that
> something is a development environment?
I was thinking if we're running from source is a good heuristic - users
that run from source and aren't up to reporting good bugs are a small
portion of our userbase, I think.
> I don't think "not from a package" or "running from home" is perfect
> because there are users who regularly run that way. But perhaps it is
> the best tradeoff.
>
> Alternatively we can set "debug_flags = no_apport" ourselves and
> simply reverse this patch.
Or we could do that instead/too. Mainly I'm saying that a user on Ubuntu
with a packaged bzr that breaks loading tests should generate an apport
problem report.
-Rob
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote : | # |
So shall we perhaps pull this out and just tell developers to set -Dno_apport?
| Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote : | # |
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:21 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> So shall we perhaps pull this out and just tell developers to set -Dno_apport?
Yes, I think so. Perhaps a note in HACKING noting this and suggesting a
bazaar.conf stanza for it?
-Rob
| Andrew Bennetts (spiv) wrote : | # |
Martin Pool wrote:
> So shall we perhaps pull this out and just tell developers to set -Dno_apport?
FWIW, this developer already set -Dno_apport several weeks ago, so that plan
gets +1 from me :)
-Andrew.
| Ian Clatworthy (ian-clatworthy) wrote : | # |
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>> So shall we perhaps pull this out and just tell developers to set -Dno_apport?
>
> FWIW, this developer already set -Dno_apport several weeks ago, so that plan
> gets +1 from me :)
Me too.
Ian C.
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote : | # |
reversion landed

Turn off apport during selftest, and put the traceback at the end where it's more useful to developers and less likely to be scrolled off by plugins.
Fixes bug 417881