After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 671694 - fail whale triggers too easily
fail whale triggers too easily
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 648384
Product: gnome-session
Classification: Core
Component: gnome-session
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Session Maintainers
Session Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-03-09 05:00 UTC by Matthias Clasen
Modified: 2012-03-11 02:18 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: 3.4
GNOME version: ---


Description Matthias Clasen 2012-03-09 05:00:11 UTC 
When I do Alt-F2 r twice in the shell, I get a fail whale.
Even if the first Alt-F2 r was 2 days ago !
Not a good experience.
We should 

a) investigate if we can make this more specific to actual crashes

b) make it only trigger if the same thing crashes multiple times _in quick succession_
Comment 1 Vincent Untz 2012-03-09 08:05:13 UTC 
(In reply to comment #0)
> b) make it only trigger if the same thing crashes multiple times _in quick
> succession_

It's already supposed to work this way, and that works in my experience (I have to kill gnome-shell several times a day because of some driver issue). But never tried doing the "r" in run dialog like this.

This might be actually be an issue caused by the restart by run dialog. I'd guess that gnome-session tries to restart gnome-shell twice, but gnome-shell restarted itself instead, which triggers the issue in gnome-session.
Comment 2 André Klapper 2012-03-09 12:11:47 UTC 
Dup of bug 648384?
Comment 3 Vincent Untz 2012-03-09 12:42:03 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> Dup of bug 648384?

It's similar, but I'm not completely sure it's the same thing: this bug is not related to timing at all, while bug 648384 seems to indicate that this only happens if you do it twice in a minute (which is wrong, but expected with the current code).
Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2012-03-11 02:18:20 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 648384 ***