[Users] [Bug 3084] gtk_cmctree_is_viewable(): claws-mail killed by SIGSEGV

[noreply at thewildbeast.co.uk]

http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3084

Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andreas.bierfert at lowlatency
                   |                            |.de

--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> ---
I had hoped that a Claws Mail developer would have a theory about what may have
gone wrong or what could be ruled out. Even negative acknowledgement or a
theory that the crash might be just a side-effect would have been more
encouraging than pointing me at the bug-writing instructions.

There is a detailed backtrace attached to those tickets, but for several
crashes of Claws Mail its users do not know how to reproduce the crash.
Sometimes all they can tell is that they have had it crash more than once. 

When it crashes spontaneously, perhaps only as a side-effect (IMAP access
instabilities e.g.), the users receive notification by the Automatic Bug
Reporting Tool, which they use to submit the bug reports in Fedora bugzilla. We
can't do much with those reports, if there are no steps on how to reproduce a
problem. And we don't forward each report anyway. For instance, if Claws Mail
is taken down in glibc memory management due to heap corruption (or
double-free, whatever) and the user tries to perform the same actions, but
cannot reproduce the problem, there is nothing we can do other than telling the
user to run memtest86+, be more careful when using the UI, or that networking
problems can crash CM during IMAP access. Eventually we receive a report about
the same/similar crash again, and if there isn't an upstream ticket about it
yet, what to do then?

For now I've lost interest in learning about crash reports in Claws Mail. I had
hoped that a report such as bug 2769 would be useful, would be responded to,
and might lead to finding something (such as not resetting ptrs to NULL after a
free(), for example). Or that a report like bug 2398 would ever be responded to
by a developer.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.