On 01/31/2010 01:35 AM, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Subject:
Re: QTParted - normal behaviour or BZ?
From:
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
Date:
Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:54:52 +1100
To:
freddog...@yahoo.co.uk, Community support for Fedora users
<users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
|
| Question: is it correct/normal behaviour for an app just to vanish,
| rather than to give an error indication?
Only statisticly. Someone's been a bit lazy. Of course it should give an
error indication.
| Should it be BZed?
"BZ"ed?
BugZilla-ed!
Subject:
Re: QTParted - normal behaviour or BZ?
From:
Marc Wilson <m...@cox.net>
Date:
Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:35:00 -0800
To:
Community support for Fedora users <users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:58 PM, DB<freddog...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Question: is it correct/normal behaviour for an app just to vanish,
> rather than to give an error indication? Should it be BZed?
It*does* give an error message. Your argument is instead that it
should produce a shiny dialog box that you have to click on, vs a
terse announcement on STDERR.
If it's*supposed* to produce that shiny dialog box (quick look at
source will tell you), and it doesn't, then it should have a bug filed
against it with Fedora. If it's not supposed to, and you think it
should, then it's an upstream request.
Thanks, I assume/expect (innocent that I am!) that a GUI would give me
a GUI indication - even if it was only a redirect of STDERR ; after all,
it starts off its "looking at the drive" window & then vanishes. I
would hope (NOT being a designer/programmer) that it would come back to
the top window, showing the available drives, so that I had the choice
of continuing with it.
Thanks to you both for your clarifications, I'll see what I can do next!
Dave
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
