SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions

[Brian Murray]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:42:31PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:47:51PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:28:24PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > > On jeu., 2011-08-04 at 07:36 -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > Do you have datas that showing that most of the bugs are coming from
> > > stable versions? I would rather think that most of the useful technical
> > > feedback is coming from unstable versions (we do turn apport off on
> > > stable series as well), stable user tend to report feedback (things they
> > > like or not, design issues, etc) rather than bugs than benefit from
> > > apport informations usually.
> > 
> > With regards to the volume of bug reports - since Maverick has been
> > released on 2010-10-10 there have been 8572 bugs reported using apport.
> > The same number for Lucid since 2010-04-29 is 17,949.  I'd tell you the
> > number for Natty but Launchpad times out.  However, with the two data
> > points we have I think there are enough bugs reported about stable
> > releases using apport to justify an SRU for an updated package hook in
> > most situations.
> 
> I can attest we do get a lot of bug reports post-release; X crashes and
> freezes in the release are of particular interest to me - they're high
> priorities to do SRUs for if we can pinpoint the problem and if it's
> sufficiently widespread.
> 
> But Seb hits on a key phrase - "useful technical feedback is coming from
> unstable versions".  Post-release the volume of reports goes up but
> quality seems to go way down, so the value of post-release bug reports
> is a lot less to me than the pre-release ones.
> 
> Still, with a well crafted apport hook you hardly need the user to write
> anything (and in fact I notice with GPU freezes, many people don't).
> Usually we just need to know answers to a few basic questions; I'm
> experimenting with having the apport hook ask those questions multiple
> choice, since few users think to provide the answers upfront - so far
> seems to be working well.
> 
> Like Brian mentioned, I also am trying to build logic into the apport
> hooks to detect situations where reports would not be wanted (hardware
> we don't support, etc.), and have apport kick out early in those cases.
> (Perhaps having apport give the user some helpful direction, if it can
> be done without becoming too irritating.)
> 
> In my mind the only issue with leaving apport automatic bug collection
> turned on post-release is that it could result in excessive volumes of
> dupe bug reports, and that's why I tend to favor the idea of aggregating
> them in a crash database.

Whether or not apport should be left on post-release for crash reporting
is independent of the original question which in my mind was:

"Should we provide Stable Release Updates for apport package hooks?"

I say aye.

--
Brian Murray
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110811/39342f6d/attachment.pgp>