user release.debian....@packages.debian.org usertag 587842 squeeze-can-defer tag 587842 squeeze-ignore kthxbye
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 23:04:31 +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote: > Hello, > > On trečiadienis 19 Sausis 2011 11:18:34 Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:25:34 +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > > 4) src:krusader #604196 There are reports that the included fix for this > > > grave bug is wrong. Too bad I would need to do a t-p-u upload in order > > > to include the supposedly right fix ( > > > http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1169424 + > > > http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1169519 ). I will test it > > > as best as I can. > > > > maybe r1 as well. > > First of all, some background on the issue: > > 1) Before 1:2.2.0~beta1-2 was uploaded, upstream [1] and me [2] had some > considerations about the fix because it apparently introduced a new > regression > as serious as a crash [3]. To make things worse, #604196 was later opened > saying that the patch didn't actually fix the bug in the end. > > 2) QCoreApplication::processEvents() [4] is considered to be a dangerous > function when called manually. It messes up control flow in unpredictable > ways > as it triggers processing of the event loop right away. It may even dead lock > an application in the worst case scenario (event loop processing from within > unfinished event handler, oops). Who knows, maybe #604196 is because of event > loop deadlock. > > The new patch apparently nails and fixes the real cause of the hang-on-quit. > Of course if there is release process related reasons to wait (e.g. it's > simply too late for t-p-u at this point), we can delay it. But if we could > fix > it now, we should do it (it's -1 RC bug anyway, karma++ :-)). > I think this can wait for r1, and at this point I'm nervous about more changes before the release, so I'll defer this. Thanks, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature