Scott Kitterman wrote:
> We'd be flooded with stacks of dupes mostly to existing bugs
> and no one to triage, let alone fix them.
In their current form dupes are mostly annoying, but what if the
apport was redesigned so that it had a "production mode" where it
only bumped a counter on the origina
pe, 2008-11-14 kello 12:36 +0100, Martin Pitt kirjoitti:
> Problem is that in order to do that, we need to catch the initial
> crash first and write it to disk, i. e. we would get the CPU/IO
> overhead again by default. That alone doesn't worry me too much, but
> it might be an issue in certain env
Scott Kitterman [2008-11-14 5:46 -0500]:
> I do think if there's a reasonable way to report all crashes from
> -proposed, that would be a good thing.
I agree. With a bit of apt-cache policy magic we can detect this on
the client side.
Problem is that in order to do that, we need to catch the in
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:44:00 +0100 Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Am 14.11.2008 um 03:25 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>
>> Perhaps Apport could be taught to roll the dice and return crash
>> reports in
>> some fraction of cases post-release (perhaps 5 or 10 percent).
>> This would
>>
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:51:53 + "Matthew East" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I have heard people discuss post-release regressions due to SRU/security
>> updates. I was chatting with another developer last night who sa
Am 14.11.2008 um 03:25 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> Perhaps Apport could be taught to roll the dice and return crash
> reports in
> some fraction of cases post-release (perhaps 5 or 10 percent).
> This would
> help us catch regressions.
I don't see a reason why Apport is automatically switche
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have heard people discuss post-release regressions due to SRU/security
> updates. I was chatting with another developer last night who said he'd
> found Hardy very stable at release and less so as it got updated.
>
> P
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:48:40 +0100 Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Markus Hitter [2008-11-13 11:56 +0100]:
>> While we can't "fix" developers, we can put more automatic helpers
>> into place:
>>
>> - Keep Apport enabled even on stable releases. Hiding bugs doesn't
>> help.
>
>We don
Markus Hitter [2008-11-13 11:56 +0100]:
> While we can't "fix" developers, we can put more automatic helpers
> into place:
>
> - Keep Apport enabled even on stable releases. Hiding bugs doesn't
> help.
We don't disable Apport in stable releases because we want to hide
bugs. The reasons are,
