RFC: Automatic trouble reporting

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Johan Walles">

> Bug-buddy also requires a non-trivial amout of manual interaction.  Thus,
> it just lowers the threshold for filing bug reports manually, it doesn't
> remove it.  Newbie users won't be able to report any crashes, with or
> without Bug-buddy, but with a non-interactive system they would.

That can be addressed quite easily.

> Another problem with Bug-buddy is that it doesn't gather any information
> about the system logs, so you won't get any notifications on kernel oopses
> and such (which users may not even notice but you might still be
> interested in).

Hasn't been of use in the cases where bug-buddy is used so far, but it could
always be addressed should we need to.

> Regarding Bugzilla, it is (IMO) a very nice tool for manual bug reporting,
> but it isn't very well suited for statistics gathering.  It won't answer
> the question "which program in Ubuntu crashes the most?" or "Was the new
> release of X.Org's ATI driver any better than the previous one?".

There are plenty of modifications such as these on other bugzilla-based
systems, such as GNOME's "find duplicate crasher bugs" scripts. The rest of
it is just reporting.

> On the server side, I imagine the results should be presented as a
> high-score list, roughly like Debian's Popularity contest.  That would
> give you a "profile" of what parts of Ubuntu need attention.

Bugzilla provides good reporting on the stuff it does already. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia                http://linux.conf.au/
 
                       'unf' is walking into a door.
                     'untz' is walking into a drum kit.