Raring Cycle Feedback and vUDS blueprint planning

[Siddhanathan Shanmugam]

That makes sense. Bug reporting seemed pretty straightforward to me.

--
Siddhanathan

*Contact:* siddhanathan at gmail.com |
Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/110264031007156617542/>|
Twitter <http://twitter.com/siddhanathan>
*Support Freedom:* Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> |
Firefox<http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/> |
VLC <http://www.videolan.org/vlc/> | Android <http://www.android.com/> |
LibreOffice <http://www.libreoffice.org/>


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Nicholas Skaggs <
nicholas.skaggs at canonical.com> wrote:

> Scott is correct here. If your using ppa's, it's important to rule them
> out so to say as the potential reason for the bug. For example, if unity is
> blowing up while your using the xorg-edgers ppa, it might be that new
> version of mesa your using, rather than unity itself, that is causing
> issues. If you encountered this scenario with running the development
> version of ubuntu, apport would correctly remind you your using
> non-official packages and if possible, you should try recreating the issue
> on a "virgin" ubuntu installation in order to determine if it's a bug.
>
> PPA's are great fun, and if your using them for testing, that's great too.
> But we don't want to confuse any issues found in an unofficial version of a
> package with what's in the archive. The article you linked mentions how to
> do apport hooks, which allows a developer to use apport for there ppa
> packages if they so choose. When we do calls for testing, bug reporting
> instructions are critical -- some developers take advantage of the hooks,
> for others we use bug tags. Having a standardized way of doing this
> couldn't hurt, but our concern is focused on the context of testing.
> Specifically I'm focused to ensure you can report bugs during a call for
> testing and do so as easily as possible, while ensuring the developer can
> filter and see the bugs you file and keep his development workflow intact.
> Make sense? Have you found the different means of reporting bugs during
> calls for testing difficult?
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>wrote:
>
>> Siddhanathan Shanmugam <siddhanathan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A little feedback for improving the testing experience.
>> >
>> >Apport currently doesn't allow for automated crash reporting on
>> >unofficial
>> >packages delivered through a PPA. Jason
>> >DeRose<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114471118004229223857> has
>> >a good article on a workaround for this: *How to use Apport in your
>> >daily
>> >PPA
>> >builds*<
>> http://jderose.blogspot.in/2012/09/how-to-use-apport-in-your-daily-ppa.html
>> >.
>> >There should be some way for testers and developers to override this
>> >default behavior. A lot of time was wasted in testing where Apport
>> >simply
>> >collects all the necessary details and then later decides that it can't
>> >file the bug report because of unofficial packages.
>>
>> We definitely don't want bugs against Ubuntu packages that come from PPA
>> packages.  The first problem you have to solve is the lack of any place to
>> fike bugs against PPA packages, apport created or not.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
>> Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/attachments/20130502/702fbad1/attachment.html>