Am 14.09.2008 um 03:32 schrieb Null Ack:
> Action Item 1: I'm not a developer, but I can help any developers with
> testing and feedback for enhancements to Apport.
Null,
your investments in enhancing Apport ist great. Now, a few weeks
later, I've learned Apport can map coredumps to readable
Gday everyone. As part of my work with the QA Team I want to
contribute to fixing the process gaps in this area. Can I summarise
what I see as the problem:
Problem situation: I'm increasingly noticing that certain types of
bugs are being marked invalid or incomplete with boilerplate type
messages
Thanks for all the discussion on this folks. :)
Just now I had a crash in totem with apport leading me to 9 previously
reported bugs that are either invalid or incomplete because the bug
reporter did not do a backtrace to help fix the problem. Now I have
the same issue, when it was originally repo
Olá Brian e a todos.
On Friday 22 August 2008 14:31:08 Brian Curtis wrote:
> My idea is to have launchpad send out an e-mail to the bug creators of bugs
> relating to packages that were recently updated asking them to check with
> the update (provide instructions on how to update) to see if their
I haven't been following along very closely, but I have an idea on something
that might help out with bug management (assuming this hasn't been talked
about).
I went through and marked a bunch of bugs as incomplete yesterday because it
seems that pidgin was updated and their problems were resolved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman schreef:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:42:01 +0100 "Caroline Ford"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/8/20 Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> But there are also many crash reports where the retracers fail and we
>>> dont have any
2008/8/21 Christopher James Halse Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In what way is this different to the current Apport infrastructure? My
> understanding is that the client sends in the crashdump and the apport
> retracers on launchpad replay it on a system with the debugging symbols
> installed.
>
>
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:26 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> 2008/8/20 Null Ack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
> > specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
> > low hit rate with this working in practice.
>
> It is
2008/8/20 Null Ack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
> specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
> low hit rate with this working in practice.
It is not surprising. Asking people to install multi-megabyte packages
and re
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:17 +1000, Null Ack wrote:
> 3. Ubuntu makes the leading step in showing their commitment to
> quality by requiring that all upstream projects run the security test
> static test tool before it will be accepted into the repos. Tools are
> bit to make this pretty easy for ups
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 12:46 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > "Incomplete" is a warning that the report isn't useful
> > in its current state, and will soon be treated accordingly
> > unless it's made more useful.
> >
> That is certainly that is 'a' purpose, but not the only one.
> Understanding
2008/8/21 Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Am 20.08.2008 um 11:42 schrieb Null Ack:
>
>> I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
>> specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
>> low hit rate with this working in practice.
>
> How about getting t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:38AM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Also, it seems to me that if you tell someone their bug is "invalid"
> that doesn't inspire them to come back with more information or send
> more bugs in the future. On the other hand, if you mark the bug as
> "need help" or similar, t
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:42:01 +0100 "Caroline Ford"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2008/8/20 Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> But there are also many crash reports where the retracers fail and we
>> dont have any testcase. You want those to stay open as well?
>
>But what do we do with these th
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:42:01PM +0100, Caroline Ford wrote:
> 2008/8/20 Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > But there are also many crash reports where the retracers fail and we
> > dont have any testcase. You want those to stay open as well?
>
> But what do we do with these then? They a
2008/8/20 Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But there are also many crash reports where the retracers fail and we
> dont have any testcase. You want those to stay open as well?
But what do we do with these then? They are still bugs, and with some
crashes we never seem to get a backtrace with
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:06:56PM +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
> So yes, please stop this marking-as-invalid-mania.
>
I think the real problem here is that we open new bugs for every crash
in the first place. Having a separate crash database from where
developers can pick individual crashes (t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:42:42PM +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
> Am 20.08.2008 um 11:42 schrieb Null Ack:
>
> > I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
> > specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
> > low hit rate with this working in practice.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:39:40AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:31 +1000 "Null Ack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Evening Devs,
> >
> >Tonight I was doing some of my test suite and I had the
> >tracker-preferences crash unexpectedly doing routine workflow with
> >viewin
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> By marking incomplete backtrace crash bugs invalid we lose information both
> about circumstances of crashes and frequency. A bug with 50 dupes and one
> good backtrace is different than one with no dupes. Reading the dictionary
> definition of 'invalid', I don't think it
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:00, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote on 20/08/08 15:34:
> > On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:31, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> >...
> >
> >>> So, if there is no suitable bug state existing already we need a new
> >>> state for these kinds of bugs. We c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote on 20/08/08 15:34:
>
> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:31, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>...
>>> So, if there is no suitable bug state existing already we need a new
>>> state for these kinds of bugs. We can call it "watching", or
Am 20.08.2008 um 11:42 schrieb Null Ack:
> I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
> specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
> low hit rate with this working in practice.
How about getting this even more automated? Apport would have three
butt
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:31, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote on 20/08/08 15:20:
> >...
> > On the other hand I do think it's worthwhile to somehow mark bugs which
> > are not sufficiently documented as to be reproducible/fixable.
> >...
> > So, if there is no suitable bug state
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Smith wrote on 20/08/08 15:20:
>...
> On the other hand I do think it's worthwhile to somehow mark bugs which
> are not sufficiently documented as to be reproducible/fixable.
>...
> So, if there is no suitable bug state existing already we need a
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 16:06 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
> please stop this marking-as-invalid-mania.
+1. It's a bad idea to hide problems, even ones that cannot be
replicated.
On the other hand I do think it's worthwhile to somehow mark bugs which
are not sufficiently documented as to be reprodu
Am 20.08.2008 um 13:39 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> Modulo stupid sysadmin tricks that can put a system in an
> unsupportable
> state, crashes are always bugs and should not be casually thrown away.
Isn't this a discussion coming up every 6 months or so? From the last
time I believe to remembe
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:31 +1000 "Null Ack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Evening Devs,
>
>Tonight I was doing some of my test suite and I had the
>tracker-preferences crash unexpectedly doing routine workflow with
>viewing (not changing) preferences. Apport came through and I ended up
>at an inval
28 matches
Mail list logo
