Edgy "Crash Reports"?

Sebastien Bacher seb128 at ubuntu.com
Thu Oct 5 17:04:05 BST 2006

Le jeudi 05 octobre 2006 à 09:25 -0500, Jerry Haltom a écrit :
> Probably a little late at this time, but I'd like to ask why only
> non-Gnome applications are handled by appport?
> It seems sensible to me that ALL crashes should be sent to Launchpad,
> and then we should filter out Ubuntu-specific crashes and use LPs
> upstream tracking to move the bug to the appropriate upstream.

When apport landed to desktop it has some issues:
- slowing down the box a lot after a crash
- limited coredump to 100M which meant evolution crashs had no backtrace
by example
- non-automatic debug backtrace, which means it's not doing much better
than bug-buddy at the moment

After talking with Martin I decided it was better to keep bug-buddy
which was working better by default for GNOME. Now Martin has been doing
a rocking work on apport and we are in a position where we could
consider using apport for GNOME too. 

Another issue is the bug load. I just had a look on bugzilla.gnome, and
they got over 1000 ubuntu crasher in a week (xml-rpc bug-buddy makes
really easy to sent the crasher bug, just click on the "send" button).
We already have difficulties to cope with the number of bugs we get at
the moment what would happen if we add that extra load? Especially than
launchpad makes hard to detect duplicates at the moment (no duplicate
finder, search interface is far from being optimal, etc).

My preference for now would be to keep using bug-buddy by default and to
reconsider that when launchpad will make easier to limit duplication and
apport will generate automatic backtraces by default


Sebastien Bacher

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list