On 11/11/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/11/05, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I dunno. Anyone have good suggestions? "critical-warning-crasher" maybe? > > > > Also, as an aside, > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/boogle.cgi?query="-CRITICAL"; seems > > to be fairly good at catching these as a first approximation, though > > the lack of case sensitivity also catches places where people say > > things like "non-critical". It may be possible to generate a good > > enough query without manually marking all the relevant bugs. > > Oh, hrm, good point- I was assuming they'd be unqueryable.
Well, it's still not perfect (though I'm guessing an enhancement to boogle or a manually crafted query could be much better). Also, in fact, my previous query only caught the cases where people printed the warnings printed at the terminal. If the user didn't do that but instead just submitted a stack trace, the query would be more like http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/boogle.cgi?query=G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL (which happens to be a really tiny list, at the moment) _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
