apport symptom based reporting

Andy Whitcroft apw at canonical.com
Mon Feb 22 12:57:24 UTC 2010


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:51:06PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> I have just had a strange experience with the symptom based reporting
> in apport.  I have obviously had some kind of kernel issue, either a
> delayed failed suspend/resume report or perhaps an oops which has not
> had any physical effect I am aware of.  I get the apport report of a
> 'serious kernel issue' and asked to report it; note that I was previously
> unaware of the problem.  Now the first question is 'Has this issue been
> confirmed to exist with the upstream kernel?" and I have yes/no as options.
> But as I have no prior knowledge of the issue, and have yet to have had an
> option to see the report, it is impossible for me to answer this question
> meaningfully.  Perhaps we need some thought to this flow for these
> cases?
> 
> Do we have a flow chart or similar we can look at to see how its means
> to question you?

Indeed the next question is then 'Do I want to test it upstream?', and
after that 'Is this a regression?', then 'is it reproducible'?

I suspect as a minimal fix we need an 'Unknown' on the first question,
which probabally skips the second, and an 'Unknown' on the rest.  Or
perhaps a question which first which lets me skip them all if I have no
clue what is going on.  To be honest, whatever happens 'unknown' may be
a sensible additional answer to all of the questions in case people
don't understand.

Finally it offers to send this thing to Kerneloops before I have had a
chance to review it.  Things seem a little muddled as consumer.  For an
Oops I wonder if we can show them the oops message before they have to
answer anything.

-apw




More information about the kernel-team mailing list