Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-18 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Martin Pool's message of Tue May 17 09:17:13 -0700 2011: It seems like a great thing to try to measure. 1- I wonder if it would be possible to have just one single checkbox contribute anonymous non-personal technical information to help improve Ubuntu that covers both the

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-18 Thread Bryce Harrington
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:03:47PM +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: Bryce Harrington schreef op di 17-05-2011 om 10:16 [-0700]: Would you be open to including one more uuid return, following the first login attempt? I know it probably doesn't matter for a ubiquity perspective, but there are

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Nigel Babu
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Evan Dandrea e...@ubuntu.com wrote: While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure rate is in the real world. Without this information, we have no means

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Ken VanDine
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 11:44 +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote: While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure rate is in the real world. Without this information, we have no means of actually

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 06:44:26 AM Evan Dandrea wrote: While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure rate is in the real world. Without this information, we have no means of actually

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Evan Dandrea
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Jussi Schultink juss...@ubuntu.com wrote: The information gathered could also give us an idea of how many installations we are doing as well, which is useful. Do you plan to implement this only for ubiquity or for the alternate install as well? I don't want to

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43:25 AM Philipp Kern wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones home by default is

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Martin Pool
It seems like a great thing to try to measure. 1- I wonder if it would be possible to have just one single checkbox contribute anonymous non-personal technical information to help improve Ubuntu that covers both the installer and the later use of other programs. If there's only one box for all

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Scott, On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: You knew you'd get this response eventually ... :-) While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones home by

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Robert Collins
Without commenting on the privacy / merit of the proposal etc... I don't think you need a guid. Just two counters: - started an install - first login after an install where this machine successfully register the 'started an install' counter. divide the two and you have (with some noise) the

Re: Measuring success/failure in the installation

2011-05-17 Thread Jan Claeys
Bryce Harrington schreef op di 17-05-2011 om 10:16 [-0700]: Would you be open to including one more uuid return, following the first login attempt? I know it probably doesn't matter for a ubiquity perspective, but there are several classes of issues that result in a bootable but unusable