I'll ask what the progress is with our Bugzilla upgrade when the one who offered this comes online again.
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:25:40PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote: > On 5/22/07, Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Searching for "Unhandled exception" is too hard? > > Not all bugs have a proper trace, not all crashes result in the > unhandled exception message (100% cpu usage being one case), not all > bugs say crash (some say hang, or stuck, 100% cpu usage, freeze, etc). > So If we had a crash keyword, then as people look at the new bugs, it > can be added. Then people who are looking for crashes to fix or at > least debug further (as I do), can find those bugs easier. I would consider neither of hang, stuck, 100% cpu usage, freeze to be a crash. I think that regardless of the result of the bug it might be useful to check that it gets debugged. So we might distinguish two boolean variables for bugs: - (1) Has it all the information that can be provided (e.g. crash log and back-trace with debug symbols)? This would also contain checking that all the fields are properly set. - (2) Do we know the cause for the bug? ( E.g. for a segmentation fault AKA crash in the application, do we know what in Wine caused it? ) Should we include in (1) if it can be reproduced independently? Jan
