On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:12 +0000, Graham Binns <gra...@canonical.com> wrote: > I like this idea, but we rejected it early on because there's some > data in Apport blobs that can be used to populate the +filebug form. > > Of course, we could add it after the fact, for example updating the > bug description to be apport description + user description and so on. > I'm ambivalent about doing that though. > > That said, it wouldn't be hard to have the job class tied to the bug > once it's been filed and then, once the job's complete, updating the > bug with the data from the blob. > > I'll look into how the data from the blob is used again (I can't > remember why we rejected this approach before; I'm assuming there's a > good reason that I've forgotten). If it's possible to do it this way > then maybe that's how we should proceeed.
A surprising number of people delete the apport info from the bug description, so appending that afterwards would reduce the incidence of that (at the cost of an extra bugmail I assume). However, the title of the bug is what worries me. We have a tough enough time with people deleting the apport-suggested title and putting in "Crash!!!" or similar, and that is all we would have if apport didn't suggest a title at all (I'm not sure how you would join the apport and user set titles). Also, usually people have no clue as to what caused the bug, so asking them to fill in blank boxes will stop some people filing. At least having them prepopulated allows people to write "I don't know what happened, I was just asked to submit this" without feeling like they aren't conveying any information whatsoever. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp