*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 628104 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628104
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 07:46:37AM -, Edward Donovan wrote:
> The 'client-side duping' I'm talking about is, I guess, a fairly recent
> arrival?
> http://www.piware.de/2011/11/apport-1-90-client-side-du
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 628104 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628104
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:54:13PM -, Edward Donovan wrote:
> Steve, let me ask you a question about releasing, if you will. I'm
> chasing a few different bugs right now. I don't know whether this is a
>
To be more explicit, I think the recent reports like mine, against
628104, *are* the new duplicates -- their equivalents, since the system
intercepts them. (It's been my plan to mail Martin, to ask about this
sort of thing, after release happens.)
Since we can't open the bug we're sent to, bug 9
Thank you, Steve, that helps quite a bit.
The 'client-side duping' I'm talking about is, I guess, a fairly recent
arrival?
http://www.piware.de/2011/11/apport-1-90-client-side-duplicate-
checking/
"So with the just released Apport 1.90 we introduce client-side
duplicate checking. So from now,
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 01:25:29AM -, Edward Donovan wrote:
> I still do not grok bug patterns enough; excuse me. For me and other
> recent reporters, it's the traceback which matches bug 628104, and is
> automatically duped to it. The client-side duping catches it; if you
> manually upload t
I have read up a little on bug patterns. Since apport and LP will match
on tracebacks, and did so, here, that still seems significant, though
there is no pattern written. (As I understand it.) No?
Thanks.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
I can now reproduce this, and might rewrite the description, and even
reopen the status. But I will wait a while to hear back in my last
comment, before trying that.
In brief, to reproduce it, quit update-manager from the Launcher
quicklist, during a running upgrade. It may not happen 100% of
at
Hi gentlemen -
I still do not grok bug patterns enough; excuse me. For me and other
recent reporters, it's the traceback which matches bug 628104, and is
automatically duped to it. The client-side duping catches it; if you
manually upload the crash, the server-side retracing catches it.
You can
Yes, that's true and if Edward would have hit the pattern then the count
would have been incremented by one.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/982767
Title:
aptdaemon crashes during upda
Brian,
> There was a bug pattern for bug 855394 though which is similar.
Isn't that the one that we saw no hits against via bit.ly?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/982767
Title:
aptd
There was a bug pattern for bug 855394 though which is similar.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/982767
Title:
aptdaemon crashes during update-manager run: "Could not cancel
transacti
Hi Steve, thanks very much for responding.
Your questions demonstrate that I do not yet know how apport and LP
match duplicates, and more, and I may be using some terms poorly.
> But how exactly did apport send you there?
Apport popped up its window and asked me to file. I clicked 'Continue'
on
Edward,
The request was that people file new *crash* reports; i.e., to use the
apport interface to report a new bug which would show us the crash. You
write:
> I myself cannot reproduce it.
Which makes this bug report of dubious value.
> A number of users have tried to report the crash through
13 matches
Mail list logo
