Disabling whoopsie by default in the 12.04.1 release

Evan Dandrea ev at ubuntu.com
Mon Aug 6 11:05:58 UTC 2012


> Hello all,
>
> Sebastien Bacher [2012-08-02 23:31 +0200]:
>> I know that most of the cons are addressable but until we do address
>> them the consensus form the people I talked to seems to be that the
>> cost-benefit is largely not in our favour at this point so I would
>> recommend we do disable it by default for 12.04.1
>
> Big +1 from me. It has been a great experiment, advancement, and also
> help for 12.04 so far, and did improve the quality. However, after
> 12.04.1 there will be much less focus on precise as we will not have a
> dedicated team for it any more, and the worst issues should have been
> shaken out now. Having fewer people working on it makes the
> cost-benefit ratio even worse.

Ubuntu 12.04 is not static. This discussion revolves around a point release -
a large number of changes occurring to this already-released operating system.
Indeed, there will be many changes still via -updates and future point
releases.

These all bring with them their share of bugs. How will we know the extent of
them without http://errors.ubuntu.com ?

I don't think we can claim having insufficient resources to fix every issue as
a defense for not wanting to know about the most pressing issues. Quite the
opposite, actually. If we have fewer developers working on this, then it's all
the more critical that they work on the problems that affect the most users.

As I'm sure you recall, Matthew designed the interface to deemphasize a
connection between the user and someone fixing the issue. There's no link to a
bug report or problem page that they can follow along with. There's no promise
that the issue will be resolved. So having less engineers working on 12.04
wont change their perception.

> Apport as it was on precise (and still is in Quantal) has not really
> been designed for usage in a stable release. For example, the rate
> limitation should be a lot more aggressive in stables, and we need to
> do something about the presentation of crashes that are not obviously
> connected to the UI, such as crashes in threads and respawned
> services.

Just echoing Matthew's comment that we should turn off rate-limiting when not
reporting to Launchpad. I've filed a bug for this so we can debate the merits
outside this thread:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/1033471

> Absolutely! Thanks Evan for all this, it's great to see this evolve so
> systematically.

Thanks



More information about the Ubuntu-release mailing list