Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 6681
"An Unrecoverable Error has occurred" is *not* enough error message.
Last modified: 2003-03-11 18:15:36 UTC
It certainly isn't going to encourage people to file bug reports, none the more is it going to make those reports that *do* get filed useful. Any chance we could get a *whole lot more* information out of errors, even if we hide it behind a button or something? Yes, this is a DEFECT, not a FEECH or ENHANCE -- at least, not in *my* humble opinion; getting useful error reports even as a VAR is impossible, much less as a developer.
Jay, in fact this _is_ an enhancement: The dialog works as expected (it informes the user that an error occured), doesn't it? If you expect more from the dialog, well, then it needs to be enhanced. It's current specification is fullfilled .... changing the issue type accordingly. Additionally: * changing the component/QA contact to the framework project - this is no user interface issue, but more a question of the technical infrastructure for this * changing the OS/Platform to "All" - if we want to have this enhancement, then not only for Linux. Frank
You could construe my categorization as "defect in the design specification", if you wanted to... :-) IMHO, DEFECTs are likely to get more attention than ENHANCEs, as demonstrated by the fact that iZ boldfaces the former and not the latter in buglists.
Jay, fixing "defects" in specification is an enhancement. Finally, there is somebody (here: you) who thinks that the current spec leads to an unsufficient and/or undesirable behaviour. If this would be all which is required for a defect, than everything is a defect. As I understand "community", specs are not changed upon the request of a single person, but upon consensus which has to raise out of a discussion (well, if notbody is interested in, there may be no discussion at all :). Speaking strictly, it could be possible that you are requesting nonsense (which is not the case here :) .... This may be somewhat nitpicking for this special issue, but I really think it touches some basic understanding of how Issuezilla works (or should work). Well, maybe _my_ understanding is wrong :), but I really think that this here an enhancement .... Frank
Well, the problem might be merely that the secondary effects of the characterization are ill-chosen, and they directly affect me... but at the moment, my problem is merely that no one (except you) seems to be listening -- a common problem on bZ's, but one I was hoping I wouldn't have trouble with here. Time to go throw money at Sun, I guess; I have some 'issues' at a client's that are going to cause me to eat a $6000 system (which simply isn't going to happen) if I can't get them cleared.
Jay, well, your issue is 7 days old. There are other issues which got not that much attention like this one here in this time frame :). Anyway. One problem I see here is that it is difficult to collect more information. I think stack traces or so would be possible, but I am not sure if this is what you want. Any additional (more high-level) data would be difficult to collect me thinks, and require quite some work to collect. So we surely can't promise anything (Personally, I can't promise anything, anyway: This is not my working area :). Perhaps it would help if you specify in more detail what information you expect - at the moment, it's only "want to have _more_ info" :) Frank
What I wanted was for there to be enough information for someone who could actually *fix* the problem to do so. I can see that, given the (complete lack of) performance of this particular bZilla, it doesn't matter. Time to upgrade to Word Perfect.
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved duplicate issues. Please see this posting for details. First step in IssueZilla is unfortunately to set them to verified.
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved <wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for details.