branches/KDE/3.5/kdelibs/kio/kio

[Michael Brade]

On Monday 05 December 2005 14:11, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday 05 December 2005 10:45, Michael Brade wrote:
> > Well gee ey? What's going on with you, you're writing this almost two
> > weeks after I reverted, which was still *before* our discussion, we have
> > exchanged about 6 emails each since then, discussing the real cause and
> > the proper fix!
>
> when we talked, you told me that your reversion had been made after the
> tagging for 3.5.0. so i wasn't exactly overly concerned about rushing about
> and ensuring that anything was done since we had until 3.5.1 ...
ah, so that is the reason then that you were so reluctant to reply in the 
end... because you misunderstood my mail and thought everything was fine :-(

> > I don't understand you anymore, honestly.
>
> you understood me before? ;P
no ;-)
but now I do! :) see at the end of this mail.

> >   - this is my code (sadly there are not many people yet who understand
> > the big picture of KDirListerCache) and you did not tell me anything
> > about your problem before committing the flawed fix,
>
> perhaps you should talk to dfaure and explain to him that it's flawed too
> then. he's look at it.
I will, you bet! Oh, wait, actually, he should have read this mail and thus 
know already ;-)

> leaving my patch in there for 3.5.0 wouldn't have made one whit of
> difference for you and your debugging but sure would've made a lot of other
> people's 3.5 experience a lot nicer.
we can argue about this all day long but I guess we would still keep our 
different opinions... I have done too much debugging on KDirLister and kio 
issues already. I agree that the user experience could have been better 
though.

> >   - your fix would have made it impossibly difficult to debug the crashes
> > that are still left in KDirListerCache (probably about 1-2 of them) by
> > violating one of KDirListerCache's core invariants. All future KDE 3.5.0
> > reports would be a lot closer to "useless" with your patch in.
>
> again, this only affects things when that invariant was violated in the
> first place.
yes.

> and the time it seems to be violated (app termination) makes 
> it rather improbable that it would lead to further crashes if your
> descriptions of those cases were comprehensive in our private
> conversations.
ah, no, it is never violated on app termination, your app termination case 
would most probably crash in about every single KDirListerCache function if 
it was called, you just happened to have KDLC::forgetDirs called. The 
invariant is violated in some normal use-cases as well (unfortunately), one 
being the Quanta and KDevelop-problems I didn't get around fixing yet. And 
I'm still waiting for some meaningful reports, which would not be possible 
with your patch in.

> of course, we can tell all this to the people whose kicker is once again
> crashing. i'm sure they'll care. =(
yeah, *if* it's only about the users :-/ But then, why do we (try to) write 
good code at all?

> and i respectfully disagree that the patch is completely wrong. maybe there
> is a better fix, but it provided the pragmatically correct results and in
> time for 3.5.0.

vs your mail from Thursday:

> i could probably hack around this one particular case in kicker, but i'm 
> fairly confident it would just crop up again elsewhere. i don't like fixing 
> symptoms.
but that is what you did, fixing the symptoms.. now, all this discussion.. I 
really wouldn't mind a hack so much if wouldn't be about those possible side 
effects in our case.

> > I reverted this before our main discussion as well,
>
> which is to say you reverted with no discussion. that's my issue here.
no no, I said "before our *main* discussion". I said the following in my first 
two emails to you:

"Just in case I can't fix it in time (Wednesday is my examination) can you 
please make your workaround a hack that only returns without crashing if the 
app is kicker or disable dr.konqy before exiting kicker? Otherwise I'll just 
revert in about 24 hours."

and then (all text is mine):

"
>> not sure if better... it does indeed crash :-/ but I don't have a debugging
>> build around at the moment. When is the last day for commits in KDE 3.5? On
>> Wednesday? Your commit MUST NOT go into KDE 3.5 or I'll have a hell of a
>> time debugging most of the other bugs that are left (if there are any :-P).
> I just asked Stephan about the release and he said he already took your
> commit out ouf KDE 3.5 (phew), and that the last day for commits was 2 days 
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ago :-( So I'll try to get him put the hack in I was talking about.
well... maybe not. he said something like "oh gee, just fix it properly for 
3.5.1, whatever it is". So I guess I better get back to learning then
(unless you send me some debugging help for the evening ;)"
"

So I thought that I was more than clear...  I guess I was not?!

> well, as i recall, you said that my changes weren't in 3.5.0
yep, see above.

> and then later came back and said that you reverted it too late for 3.5.0
> tagging 
I really don't know when I should have said that :( After all, Coolo reverted 
the tag, not me. I thought you read kde-svn and commit 481751.

> in the end it was our users who got screwed, regardless.
but after all, it's only a crash on logout without possible data loss, so who 
cares? ;-P

> all kidding aside, though, i've looked through this. feel free to do so
> again, but i'd hate to see you spend time duplicating that work.
yes, me too, but I do need to completely understand the reason why 
KDirListerCache is deleted before KDirLister. And I don't yet.

> if your patch gets there in time for 3.5.1 great. i'm not going to let
> 3.5.1 ship with this problem, though, and i had no actual commitment from
> you that it would be done in time for 3.5.1 until this email. i just knew
> you were busy for the next while travelling, studying, etc...
Oh, the amount of mail I sent to you didn't convince you? Ah, next time I'll 
send twice as much ;)

> and so trusting you i figured the problem was now a 3.5.1 issue. ergo i took
> a wait-and-work-it-out-patiently approach.
and
> my reaction was impassioned, and that's because i was told 3.5.0 was going
> to ship without the crash and that obviously was not the truth.
ok, so then I understand your reaction, it was just a misunderstanding. You 
thought everything was fine and I wondered why the hell you left the crash in 
without any further effort to change the hack. Well, shit happens ;-)

cheers,
-- 
Michael Brade;                 KDE Developer, Student of Computer Science
  |-mail: echo brade !#|tr -d "c oh"|s\e\d 's/e/\@/2;s/$/.org/;s/bra/k/2'
  °--web: http://www.kde.org/people/michaelb.html

KDE 3: The Next Generation in Desktop Experience
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20051206/1f22bd9b/attachment.sig>