On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 08:07:45PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Looks good ... though I haven't actually reviewed the patches. >> > >> > I hope you've thought about what will happen if people report problems >> > that are part of the underlying software stack ... or even hardware. >> >> It does bundle a few system logs, so there may be clues there. > > Not just that, but how will your processes handle things that aren't > outside your direct control? Will you elevate OLPC problems back to > OLPC, for example? Will you have adequate translators?
Oh, no not at all. That's why it doesn't file bugs. The plan is to have knowledgeable people (myself, to begin with) triage the sugar-reports list and forward data to the appropriate place. For example, if the logs contain a Sugar Python traceback we haven't seen before, whoever is monitoring the list can just forward it to the Sugar maintainers. Eventually I'd like to add some more brains to the log server, like automatically identifying and emailing the author of an activity with an error, based on the log filename. But that's just to save work for the subscribers of the sugar-reports list. If the user wishes to follow up her report with the appropriate support team, they are also given a decimal Report ID which can be used to track down their logs. So they could chase the issue upstream on their own if they wish. -Wade _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
