Bug 2789 (debugger broken)

[Enrico Segre]

Vincent, 

> To be short and clear about the current development of Scilab and your 
> ceaseless criticisms about the work of operational team.

I don't think that Francois is criticizing for nothing. At all. At least
he is still writing to you, others just walked away.

>  * About the rewriting of the TCL loop management: yes some 
> functionalities have been broken, and particularly the functionalities 
> used by Scipad debugger (reentrant Tcl constructs). These reentrant Tcl 
> calls can be "quite easily" rewritten by separating calls to ScilabEval 
> and calls to TCL_* as we did for the error handling for Scipad "Load 
> into Scilab..." menu.

Are you sure about that? At first glance and without trying, I would say
it won't be that easy.

>  We have to update the Wiki page you talk about to 
> give workarounds for these special use cases of the TCL interface.

Please consider also that AFAIU tcl has no more even a way to understand
that the scilab interpreter is busy with a computation. This is often
needed by scipad, which has to decide wether to send or not a ScilabEval
command. This is not the same as sending an arbitrary command anyway and
wait for its queued execution.

> But please stop naming a person of the operational team in your mails! 

I don't see anything wrong here - someone in particular wrote on the
subject, is being assigned the relevant bugs - so it seems natural to
refer to him. And Francois is only saying "Bruno said this and that".

> When a development is done, it is done after dialogue with the whole 
> operational team or at least a part of it. So you can invoke the whole 
> team responsibility but please stop front attacks!

what the hell are are you talking about?

>  * About Scilab 5.0 BETA version and Release: we are late and we have 
> some more developments and improvements to do before a BETA version can 
> be released and by the way for Scilab 5.0 release.
> 
>  * About the bugs in Bugzilla: we cleaned the database during the last 
> past weeks and we now have a good idea of all the remaining bugs and we 
> try to attach the same importance to each bug and not only the ones you 
> want us (operational team) to fix.

Again, I don't think Francois is criticizing the priorities you (the
team) assigned to the various bugs, or to the works to be done. He is
only asking what is the plan, if any, with respect to what we're
developing more closely. If you don't communicate, the effect will just
be a broken debugger in the 5.0 alpha, beta, whatever.

Enrico