That makes sense. Bug reporting seemed pretty straightforward to me. -- Siddhanathan
*Contact:* [email protected] | Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/110264031007156617542/>| Twitter <http://twitter.com/siddhanathan> *Support Freedom:* Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> | Firefox<http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/> | VLC <http://www.videolan.org/vlc/> | Android <http://www.android.com/> | LibreOffice <http://www.libreoffice.org/> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Nicholas Skaggs < [email protected]> wrote: > Scott is correct here. If your using ppa's, it's important to rule them > out so to say as the potential reason for the bug. For example, if unity is > blowing up while your using the xorg-edgers ppa, it might be that new > version of mesa your using, rather than unity itself, that is causing > issues. If you encountered this scenario with running the development > version of ubuntu, apport would correctly remind you your using > non-official packages and if possible, you should try recreating the issue > on a "virgin" ubuntu installation in order to determine if it's a bug. > > PPA's are great fun, and if your using them for testing, that's great too. > But we don't want to confuse any issues found in an unofficial version of a > package with what's in the archive. The article you linked mentions how to > do apport hooks, which allows a developer to use apport for there ppa > packages if they so choose. When we do calls for testing, bug reporting > instructions are critical -- some developers take advantage of the hooks, > for others we use bug tags. Having a standardized way of doing this > couldn't hurt, but our concern is focused on the context of testing. > Specifically I'm focused to ensure you can report bugs during a call for > testing and do so as easily as possible, while ensuring the developer can > filter and see the bugs you file and keep his development workflow intact. > Make sense? Have you found the different means of reporting bugs during > calls for testing difficult? > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Siddhanathan Shanmugam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >A little feedback for improving the testing experience. >> > >> >Apport currently doesn't allow for automated crash reporting on >> >unofficial >> >packages delivered through a PPA. Jason >> >DeRose<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114471118004229223857> has >> >a good article on a workaround for this: *How to use Apport in your >> >daily >> >PPA >> >builds*< >> http://jderose.blogspot.in/2012/09/how-to-use-apport-in-your-daily-ppa.html >> >. >> >There should be some way for testers and developers to override this >> >default behavior. A lot of time was wasted in testing where Apport >> >simply >> >collects all the necessary details and then later decides that it can't >> >file the bug report because of unofficial packages. >> >> We definitely don't want bugs against Ubuntu packages that come from PPA >> packages. The first problem you have to solve is the lack of any place to >> fike bugs against PPA packages, apport created or not. >> >> Scott K >> >> >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-quality mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality >> > > > -- > Ubuntu-quality mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality > >
-- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
