| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well emerge does have a --debug flag under which to dump everything you |
| 3 |
> want. Tracebacks might also be included under the --verbose flag. IMHO |
| 4 |
> tracebacks should in most cases be replaced by user understandable |
| 5 |
> errors messages in such a way that the tracebacks are still easily |
| 6 |
> available if wanted. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
--debug is evil for dumping tracebacks. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It triggers a *lot* of additional information, and is in no way useful |
| 11 |
for sporadic tracebacks (running with --debug on constantly just to |
| 12 |
develop portage also is incredibly icky). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
My vote? If something unexpected happened, dump the traceback. Wrap |
| 15 |
it with purdy "please report this here" output, but never hide the |
| 16 |
traceback. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Main thing to remember is that while it _may_ be ugly/confusing for |
| 19 |
the user, if an unexpected/unhandled situation occurs, it's a bug _we_ |
| 20 |
must address- thus for situations of that sort, design for developers, |
| 21 |
not users. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Not saying make it cryptic, but I'll generally oppose any proposal |
| 24 |
that castrates our debugging capabilities, or requires users to jump |
| 25 |
through hoops to generate basic debug info for us. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives