The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
rick.spencer at canonical.com
Mon Aug 8 06:05:18 UTC 2011
On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 22:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:17:52AM +0200, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <side comment> I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect
> > > > crashes on all supported releases. </side comment>
> > >
> > > I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash,
> > > which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there
> > > are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and
> > > isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable
> > > especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug
> > > reports.
> > >
> > > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in
> > > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in
> > > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user)
> > > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug
> > > labor.
> > Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for
> > 12.04.
> It's been propsed and discussed previously, like ScottK mentioned. The
> issue has been finding someone with time to work on it.
I think we should be able to fix this for 12.04.
More information about the ubuntu-devel