errors.ubuntu.com has been a great success on the desktop[1]. Would support for sending reports from server installations be useful?
Even though vUDS is already underway, I thought a mailing list discussion would be more useful than a session to throw ideas around first. We can always arrange a separate out-of-band discussion on G+ if it looks like this would be useful. What would you like to see? Here are some questions and ideas to get us started. Who would be willing to submit reports? Production servers? Test deployments? Experimenters? Any other categories? Which of these categories of reports will be useful to us? Are there any that will cause us to misinterpret the results? Is there any need to categorise the reports at submission time (eg. perhaps ask the reporter a question)? What should the UX be? How should we protect privacy and avoid reports inadvertently being submitted by users who do not wish to submit them? Should we have different UX defaults between the development and production releases? If the system is opt-in (which I assume it will be), will we have enough users opting in for the system to be useful? Some implmentation ideas: Production server operators may want to vet reports before agreeing to send them, so an interactive CLI like aa-logprof(8) or apport-cli(1) that allows users to see exactly what they are submitting would be useful. So essentially a CLI equivalent of the GUI error reporting dialog. Or perhaps some kind of remote ssh enhancement to the existing GUI error reporting dialog, so users get the same UI on a desktop machine that connects to a server machine, picks up the crash reports there generates and sends reports via the local GUI? An update-motd enhancement to notify server operators that crash reports are pending. This could provide the command to type to enter the interactive CLI to submit them and a reference to a manpage with more details on how to turn off local crash report collection. A bash prompt enhancement present only during development, which prompts users with a shorter version of the motd prompt. Or would this be too intrusive? I thought of it because I imagine users not logging in much to test servers, and so might not see the motd prompt (I rarely see the motd prompt when I test, since I use ssh shared connections and short-lived cloud instances). Other thoughts: Right now I feel that the information we get from users about Server quality is poor. As always, some bug reports are awesome, are from competent submitters, and highlight real problems which we need to fix. But many bugs filed appear to be automatic and in response to postinst failures due to local misconfigurations. I think this overrepresents the set of users who are experimenting and underrepresents the users who are using Server in production. I'm not sure we get any other real feedback about quality right now, apart from general inferences that we can draw from talking to people. So if we think it's worthwhile, I'd love to see better sources of this information. So...what should we do, if anything? Please discuss! [Daviey] Just need to work out, *if* it is worth doing .. *how* to do it.. and *who* to do it :) [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPQ7k0jRUE4#t=30m8s
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
