To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=116845
User fs changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
CC|'' |'sb'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |NEW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from f...@openoffice.org Mon Feb 7 13:52:37 +0000
2011 -------
"In what way"? Compare "every assertion ever thrown during running OOo kills the
process" with "assertions thrown during the smoketest mark the smoketest as
'failed'", please.
I will object any change to our code which we're in no way prepared for.
We already have acceptance problems with the current state, where developers do
not use non-product versions "because there are so many assertions". Having a
non-product version where an assertion isn't an ignorable message box, but
implies termination of the process, won't get any better acceptance. It is
simply too early to implement this.
However, implementing smoketest breakage upon assertions is something which
won't change the daily work directly, but still give assertions at least a
*little* more attention, and thus educate people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@tools.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: allbugs-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: allbugs-h...@openoffice.org
