On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:42:31PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:47:51PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:28:24PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > > On jeu., 2011-08-04 at 07:36 -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > > > Do you have datas that showing that most of the bugs are coming from > > > stable versions? I would rather think that most of the useful technical > > > feedback is coming from unstable versions (we do turn apport off on > > > stable series as well), stable user tend to report feedback (things they > > > like or not, design issues, etc) rather than bugs than benefit from > > > apport informations usually. > > > > With regards to the volume of bug reports - since Maverick has been > > released on 2010-10-10 there have been 8572 bugs reported using apport. > > The same number for Lucid since 2010-04-29 is 17,949. I'd tell you the > > number for Natty but Launchpad times out. However, with the two data > > points we have I think there are enough bugs reported about stable > > releases using apport to justify an SRU for an updated package hook in > > most situations. > > I can attest we do get a lot of bug reports post-release; X crashes and > freezes in the release are of particular interest to me - they're high > priorities to do SRUs for if we can pinpoint the problem and if it's > sufficiently widespread. > > But Seb hits on a key phrase - "useful technical feedback is coming from > unstable versions". Post-release the volume of reports goes up but > quality seems to go way down, so the value of post-release bug reports > is a lot less to me than the pre-release ones. > > Still, with a well crafted apport hook you hardly need the user to write > anything (and in fact I notice with GPU freezes, many people don't). > Usually we just need to know answers to a few basic questions; I'm > experimenting with having the apport hook ask those questions multiple > choice, since few users think to provide the answers upfront - so far > seems to be working well. > > Like Brian mentioned, I also am trying to build logic into the apport > hooks to detect situations where reports would not be wanted (hardware > we don't support, etc.), and have apport kick out early in those cases. > (Perhaps having apport give the user some helpful direction, if it can > be done without becoming too irritating.) > > In my mind the only issue with leaving apport automatic bug collection > turned on post-release is that it could result in excessive volumes of > dupe bug reports, and that's why I tend to favor the idea of aggregating > them in a crash database.
Whether or not apport should be left on post-release for crash reporting is independent of the original question which in my mind was: "Should we provide Stable Release Updates for apport package hooks?" I say aye. -- Brian Murray
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
