On 2012-03-11, at 10:21 AM, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Sunday 11 March 2012 11:26:53 Niko Sams wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to talk about an idea on how DrKonqi (which is a really >> useful thing btw) could be >> further improved. >> In short: DrKonqi shouldn't create bugs directly but talk to a "layer" >> between. >> >> DrKonqi -> crashes.kde.org -> bugs.kde.org >> >> crashes.kde.org is a new web application - a bit similar to bugzilla: >> - lists all reported crashes with intelligent filtering duplicates >> - developers can set duplicates >> - developers can link a crash to a bug (or create automatically a bug >> for a crash) >> - developers can enter a solution (that will be presented to the user >> that hits this crash) >> eg.: >> - "update to version x.y" >> - "temporary workaround: don't click button x" >> - "you missconfigured x, see http://y.com how to fix" >> - "the developers are aware of this issue but have not yet fixed >> it, see http://bugs.kde.org/... for details" >> - "the bug is fixed but an update has not yet been released. >> Update to version x.y once it released." >> - comments can be added by users and developers (to ask how to reproduce >> etc) >> >> For the end user there could be the following scenarios: >> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org finds a duplicate crash in >> it's database and will tell the >> user on how to proceed (see possible solutions above) >> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org can't find an exact duplicate >> and will show the user >> all possible duplicates >> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org doesn't find a duplicate. User >> gets the possibility to >> subscribe to updates for this crash to get an email when a solution >> for his crash was entered >> by the developers >> >> One big difference in implementation I would propose: >> DrKonqi makes a *single* POST to crashes.kde.org including all >> information and then just shows >> a WebView where the server side can do anything. That gives greater >> independence of the used >> KDE version and changes on the server side. >> >> Advantages over current solution: >> - bugs.kde.org isn't filled with duplicates >> - crashes.kde.org can be specialized on crashes >> - sending a crash would not only help developers fixing that bug but >> also help the user by showing >> a solution for his issue. >> >> What software could crashes.kde.org run? I'm not sure, maybe a >> bugzilla installation or something >> custom written. Or some other bugtracking software. > > In short: I like the idea. > > But I guess this needs someone to step up and actually write the required > software. I doubt our dear sysadmins can spare the time and I also wonder > whether it's worth to spent time on getting this quite custom functionality > into an existing bugtracker software instead of writing the software on once > own.
It would take quite some effort. I would say building this into bugs.kde.org would be the better option since the less layers, the complex the bug tracker is. Side note: Niko, what you are proposing is something that Windows Error Reporting has been doing for years, and it seems to have served Microsoft well :) The problem is… do we have the resources to implement it *if* it is the best solution for us? > > Just for the ability to offer the user explicit feedback on his crash this > project would be very appreciated though! > > bye > -- > Milian Wolff > m...@milianw.de > http://milianw.de