[Bug #82] [Base] error accessing bug

http://anthill.vmlinuz.ca/anthill/query.php?bug=82

--- 82	2003-10-02 21:07:57.000000000 -0600
+++ 82.tmp.5ZNy3U	2003-10-03 06:07:03.000000000 -0600
@@ -37,3 +37,30 @@

 Next time, instead of putting log files directly into the bug report, make them an attachment.

+Comment posted: 2003-10-03 06:07 AM by [email protected]
+
+So....  if there is a discussion about a bug, with lots of messages back and
+forth (like I see on the sylpheed-claws bug site), are you saying that lots
+of short/medium messages would never add up to 15K or more..?  Besides,
+you'll have to make it more obvious that _annotated_ log *parts* are not to
+be considered text...   If anthill is intended to make bug reporting
+simpler, should part of that simplicity force the user to submit an
+unabridged log, then try to explain it with timestamp pointers in the main
+report...?
+
+Hey, I'm just trying to point out that bug reports are not always easy to
+separate into text and attachments.  Of course, an alternative would be a
+system that forces *everything* to be attachments; but would that solve the
+30s (now 60s) timeout problem...?  Does the same processing occur on those?
+
+Sorry for the way this might sound...  I've learned over the years that
+real-life tests are better than "test cases", especially for scalability
+issues...  for example, if a lot of users are accessing anthill and the
+system is bogged down enough, would say 5 or 6 users accessing 3K bug
+reports all have gotten this 30s timeout?  And would you have been able to
+reproduce it while analyzing on a quiet system...?
+
+Just trying to help....  up to you how you interpret this...  :^)
+
+
+

----
You are receiving this notice because you are the assignee, reporter, or a
watcher for this bug report.

_______________________________________________
Anthill-workers mailing list
Anthill-workers-+mQDA36h6dWw5LPnMra/[email protected]
http://vmlinuz.ca/mailman/listinfo/anthill-workers