[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [TSVN] Re: Changes in 2634

From: Will Dean <svn_at_indcomp.co.uk>
Date: 2005-02-08 13:45:45 CET

At 13:20 08/02/2005 +0100, you wrote:

>Speaking as one of those early-adopters, I can tell you that I will
>disable the new cache as soon as I see explorer crash because of it.

Oh, blimey. Just disable it now for all I care.

>So far, nightlies have been reasonably stable, and I have never had
>anything close to data loss caused by using them, so I feel confident in
>using them for actual work. However, when this stability is sacrificed to
>make bugs stand out, I cannot do that anymore.

I'm afraid I don't see that crashing Explorer is a particularly big deal,
and I'm not sure what kind of data loss you're referring to (unless you've
just rearranged your desktop icons, which I agree is an annoyance.) That
said, I don't think the new cache has ever crashed Explorer for anyone, has it?

>So, yes, the bugs must be found rather than silently ignored, but the way
>to do this should *not* be a crash. Why not show a popup when it happens?
>or write to some log file?

Feel free to submit a patch...

>Finding bugs by explicitly *not* preventing explorer crashes comes across
>as a big "fuck you" to everyone using nightlies, but that may just be my
>perception of things.

Nobody could accuse me of not caring about the stability of TSVN. I have
done *vast* amounts of work to improve the quality of the codebase, to try
and improve the overall quality of the product. Along the way, I have
found and fixed *dozens* of minor bugs and resource leaks, as well as some
terrible perf problems. Almost none of this work has resulted in flashy
new features, and nor has it caused lots of (any?) shell crashes. One of
several motivations for the new cache is that it has the potential to
vastly simplify the shell extension and would, one hopes, lead to improved
stability.

I do not believe that the long term stability or quality of the product is
served by catch(...) blocks, particularly when their role is to conceal
bugs in other parts of the same application.

Some things people need to know about the change we're debating here are:

1. I still think it centres on a fix to a bug which didn't exist.
2. AFAIK, the bug-which-I-don't-think-existed never caused anyone's shell
to crash.
3. The code under suspicion (written by me) was clunky and confusing and
needed improvement.

Cheers,

Will

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 8 13:46:24 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.