Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [dgorbachev] 27174: - Hackish solution of issue #2062. - Turn off title change, as it can cause a deadlock.

[Hervé Poussineau]

Hi,
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de 
> [e-mail]
> Envoyé : jeudi 14 juin 2007 18:42
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : [ros-diffs] [dgorbachev] 27174: - Hackish solution of 
> issue #2062. - Turn off title change, as it can cause a deadlock.
>
> Author: dgorbachev
> Date: Thu Jun 14 20:41:55 2007
> New Revision: 27174
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=27174&view=rev
> Log:
> Hackish solution of issue #2062.
> Turn off title change, as it can cause a deadlock.
>
> Modified:
>     trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/csrss/win32csr/conio.c
>     trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/csrss/win32csr/dllmain.c
>     trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/csrss/win32csr/guiconsole.c

Why hiding the real cause of bug 2062 by a hack, as you already did in
r27107 for bug 2151?

See desktop icons in explorer bar. They are not correct and I know when it
appeared and I known how to hack a solution. But I won't do it because I
don't want to hide the real problem. IMO, you should do the same thing and
search the root problem or leave the effect visible, so it won't be
forgotten.
If you really need to add a hack in the code, please add a comment in the C
code linking to bugzilla, and add a comment in BZ saying "hackish solution
committed in rXXXXX"

Hervé

> Why hiding the real cause of bug 2062 by a hack, as you already did in
> r27107 for bug 2151?
> IMO, you should do the same thing and search the root problem or leave
> the effect visible, so it won't be forgotten.

I know where is the root of the problem, and r27174 is a real solution, 
not simple hiding. I called it 'hackish' considering a poor quality of 
the code and of the patch itself. The code (probably written by 
different people, at different times) should be rewritten more cleanly, 
i think (do not forgot).

About r27107. It does not hide anything, as the bug is obvious. IMO, it 
was better to turn problematic piece of code off (until a good solution).

What do you think?