The latest version of FreeRide, and the version of FreeRIDE that
comes with
the One-Click Ruby Installer for Windows, both have working debuggers.
has there been a later version of freeride released. i've been using
(sort of) v0.9.2.
threads still don't show up in the 'threads's tab while debugging...
that's the most recent version. I'm forwarding this to the FreeRIDE ML to
make sure Laurent is aware of this.
Curt
That's right the threads tab is empty. It is still to be implemented and I agree it should say something like "to be done". In the mean time you can always look at the various threads through the Frames tab (see the right hand side pull down menu)
JC schrieb:
> - Five minutes of documentation would have made using the debugger
> such as it is much smooother.
I'm sure you did what you suggested and sent the missing documentation to the
FreeRide maintainers, did you?
Sorry, this doesn't sound as it was intended to. What I wanted to say was: if
you could spend some minutes to sum up your experiences and send them to the
FreeRide maintainers in order to enhance their docs, then others could benefit
from the things you've learned.
It pains me when people thoughtful enough to point out errors and
omissions are chided for failing to personally address the problems
they are reporting.
It discourages people from making suggestions, which helps no one.
Is JC the even best or correct person to write the proper
documentation? It is one thing to note that documentation is unclear
or incomplete, and quite another to provide an accurate remedy.
James
···
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:47:12 +0900, Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de> wrote:
JC schrieb:
> - Five minutes of documentation would have made using the debugger
> such as it is much smooother.
I'm sure you did what you suggested and sent the missing documentation to the
FreeRide maintainers, did you?
"James G. Britt " <ruby.talk.list@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<186bd07d0502140719451b3364@mail.gmail.com>...
> JC schrieb:
> > - Five minutes of documentation would have made using the debugger
> > such as it is much smooother.
>
> I'm sure you did what you suggested and sent the missing documentation to the
> FreeRide maintainers, did you?
If JC did, that would be great.
But if JC didn't, so what?
It pains me when people thoughtful enough to point out errors and
omissions are chided for failing to personally address the problems
they are reporting.
It discourages people from making suggestions, which helps no one.
Is JC the even best or correct person to write the proper
documentation? It is one thing to note that documentation is unclear
or incomplete, and quite another to provide an accurate remedy.
James
Yes, it does seem strange to suggest that someone who doesn't know how
to use the tool - and may never use it again, given the problems (I
suspect I'll recommend my client uses Python) - should write the docs.
Beside the obvious (or rather, really, REALLY obvious problems) the
idea of an ordinary user rather than a tool's author writing docs
misses the point that there maybe features and limitations that only
the author maybe able to document.
···
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:47:12 +0900, Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de> wrote:
Yes, it does seem strange to suggest that someone who doesn't know how
to use the tool - and may never use it again, given the problems (I
suspect I'll recommend my client uses Python) - should write the docs.
Beside the obvious (or rather, really, REALLY obvious problems) the
idea of an ordinary user rather than a tool's author writing docs
misses the point that there maybe features and limitations that only
the author maybe able to document.
Come on, James, in your previous mail you talked about what you had to do to make the debugger "semi-work" and that five minutes would be enough to add this knowledge to the docs. You seemed to know exactly what you were missing. I was not suggesting that you write about things you don't know.
You tried to work with FreeRide, a program that is provided "as is". You found things that should be improved. Now what? You wrote about the problems here in the mailing list, but unfortunately this thread is about windows debuggers, not especially about the FreeRide debugger. On the other hand, you could have given feedback directly to the FreeRide team in the form of a bug report, a patch, or a feature request. What do you think is the better way to improve the current situation?
feedback directly to the FreeRide team in the form of a bug report, a patch, or
a feature request. What do you think is the better way to improve the current
situation?
Regards,
Pit
Pit -
This really is getting silly - I've already told you that the FreeRIDE
people are reading this thread, and that I've mailed them - and I can
now say they are busy fixing the bug. As for why I didn't mail them
before posting, at that stage I wasn't even sure that it was a bug
rather than my mis-using the debugger, making a the newsgroup
definitely the most appropriate place to start. The time to post a bug
report is when you actually understand what the problem is - not at
the earliest possible moment you can confuse and disrupt development.
This really is getting silly - I've already told you that the FreeRIDE
people are reading this thread, and that I've mailed them - and I can
now say they are busy fixing the bug. As for why I didn't mail them
before posting, at that stage I wasn't even sure that it was a bug
rather than my mis-using the debugger, making a the newsgroup
definitely the most appropriate place to start. The time to post a bug
report is when you actually understand what the problem is - not at
the earliest possible moment you can confuse and disrupt development.
James, I didn't want to upset you. If I did, then please accept my apologies. I'm glad your experiences will not wither (is this correct?) here in the mailing list but instead will help to improve FreeRide.
