Reporting bugs about Ubuntu

[Xandros Pilosa]

Derek Broughton pravi:
> 
>> NoOp pravi:
<snip>
> 
> My experience is that developers have rarely asked that.  
Yes, you are right, but ( of course :-) ) bug assignees do, like in 
"bugs without home" domain [1], for example.

> Somehow I don't 
> think it's because I've always submitted every single detail they need. :-)  
> From my own experience in support, I think it's because all that apport data 
> really isn't that useful - it's _far_ more useful for a developer to get a 
> good problem description that allows him to reproduce a problem on his own 
> system, than to get stack traces that explained what happened on someone 
> else's (now, that might be personal bias - I'm pretty good at this stuff, 
> but I've known people who can read stack traces more easily than "See Spot 
> run").
I second this, but ( again, of course  :-) ) in [1], for example there 
is 2326 bug reports at the moment and the question is when and if they 
will find a way to be assigned to the right source package and by that 
to the relevant developers.
Not that Apport is any better for assigning the right package. As far I 
can see for now, it's not (mildly speaking).
Don't forget, that a lot of people are not such constructive and 
thorough in their "bugings" as yourself and NoOp and many reports make 
their ends with initial posts. In addition many reports are just 
complains, wishes, ideas etc., despite instructions how and where to 
make proper reports. This gives additional hitch to the "proper 
entomology", I assume.

>>> but adding one more hoop to go through is pretty much testing my
>>> 'goodwill' with regards to further bug reporting.
> 
> I agree.  You need to make it simple for the user to submit good bug 
> reports, and apport doesn't seem to be accomplishing that.  What I get is an 
> application crash, followed by a cryptic popup from apport (_frequently_ 
> followed by apport crashing and popping up more...), eventually popping up a 
> browser page in launchpad.  By the time I get there, I rarely even have a 
> clue what I did that triggered the whole thing, so I'm stuck deciding 
> whether to simply file the report with nothing more than the apport data, or 
> to give up.  So far "give up" has seemed the right thing to do.
> 
> I think the first, most important, thing is that bug reports _must_ be 
> initiated by users.  If they're not starting the process, it's just an 
> imposition.

I agree with you both (not that I presume it matters, again). Its 
default behaviour really breaks my concentration on particular problem. 
I'm just saying to give Apport a chance to improve itself and to become 
worth of annoyance, maybe.

Regards

[1] 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-datecreated&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.importance%3Alist=UNDECIDED&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_contact=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.component-empty-marker=1&field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_cve.used=&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.has_no_package.used=&field.has_no_package=on&search=Search