The following universe packages have new reverse dependencies
in main or got seeded. They need to get a MainInclusionReport and be
promoted, or the reverse dependencies in main need to be dropped:
MIR: #1030335 (Fix Committed)
MIR: #1031852 (Fix Committed)
Please see http://people.canonic
0120805, value=48042)
> => (counter=20120806, value=54958)
> => (counter=20120807, value=33539)
> This is wrong, as you've pointed out. Matthew has filed a bug for it here:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/daisy/+bug/1033913
> Fixing this will not require any client-side chan
The following universe packages have new reverse dependencies
in main or got seeded. They need to get a MainInclusionReport and be
promoted, or the reverse dependencies in main need to be dropped:
MIR: #1030943 (Fix Committed)
Please see http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-m
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:56:12AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> If you log in and 5 reports are
>> "waiting" on the disk we should probably not have 5 dialogs
>> displaying in sequence...
>
> I agree. And I understand this is now being
The following universe packages have new reverse dependencies
in main or got seeded. They need to get a MainInclusionReport and be
promoted, or the reverse dependencies in main need to be dropped:
o python-swiftclient: python-swiftclient
MIR: #1030943 (New)
[Reverse-Build-Depends: swif
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:56:12AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 07/08/2012 08:40, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >that data that aren't giving users a bad impression (if indeed that's what's
> >happening). For instance, what if we were to only pop up the whoopsie
> >prompt for every fifth crash
7;)];
...
=> (counter=20120801, value=54191)
=> (counter=20120802, value=52659)
=> (counter=20120803, value=51273)
=> (counter=20120804, value=45861)
=> (counter=20120805, value=48042)
=> (counter=20120806, value=54958)
=> (counter=20120807, value=33539)
This is wrong, as you&#
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dylan McCall wrote on 06/08/12 18:49:
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas
> ...
>>
>> That isn't true, unless today is a freak exception. Right now,
>> out of the 50 most common errors, only 17 are from services. The
>> rest are
Le 07/08/2012 11:47, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
But optimizing purely for the number of error prompts is the wrong
goal. The situations we're discussing are situations where *something
has already gone wrong*. We then have a choice between explaining what
went wrong, or leaving it a mystery.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote on 06/08/12 12:04:
> ...
>
> An average of 1.4 crashes/user/calendar-day is far too high.
> Suppressing the error messages won't fix that. Only fixing the
> errors will.
>
> ...
Correction: Steve Langasek's comment that "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastien Bacher wrote on 06/08/12 17:27:
> ...
>
> Let me change the angle of my suggestion, and say "we can't keep
> the LTS with that number of error prompts", that's my position.
>
> ...
In an ideal world, there would be no alert boxes of any s
hi,
Am Dienstag, den 07.08.2012, 08:19 +0200 schrieb Didier Roche:
> - the most important point in my opinion is that we are making the user
> paying the price about the error. We are interrupting them when they are
> using application X (or even maybe when they are watching a video on
> youtub
Le 07/08/2012 08:40, Steve Langasek a écrit :
that data that aren't giving users a bad impression (if indeed that's what's
happening). For instance, what if we were to only pop up the whoopsie
prompt for every fifth crash on a user's system on a stable release? The
per-user dialogue rate would
Le 07/08/2012 08:14, Steve Langasek a écrit :
If there was this much disparity between the rate of error dialogs and the
rate of SRU bug fixes, it would have been nice to make this a focus for
12.04.1 work. But that's water under the bridge now.
It has been defined as a focus and several peopl
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:09:54PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> >I think we could argue about whether it's showing up "too often." It's
> >showing up precisely as often as the user is experiencing crashes. At
> >present, this is 1.47 times a day on average (a value we wont know if
> >we turn of
15 matches
Mail list logo
