Hi Seb,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:36:07PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 20/08/2012 12:26, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
> >Apologies. It was not my intention to imply you accepted the
> >decision, just that your team picked a number you would be happy
> >with, and we came up with data that indicat
Hello Evan,
Evan Dandrea [2012-08-20 10:41 +0100]:
> How can you programmatically tell that a daemon crashing has not affected
> the UI?
We can't. We just know that in a lot of cases it doesn't.
> I disagree that they do not help anyone.
I didn't say that. I just said that there are a lot of su
Evan Dandrea [2012-08-20 10:19 +0100]:
> I think the less people we have working on a point release, the more
> valuable accurate data becomes.
Accurate, yes. But it becomes less useful, as the ratio of "user
annoyance" vs. "actual bug fixing" becomes a lot higher.
> > So perhaps one possible com
Le 20/08/2012 12:26, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
Apologies. It was not my intention to imply you accepted the decision,
just that your team picked a number you would be happy with, and we
came up with data that indicated we were below that.
Right, we picked a "3 dialogs showing up in a week" as a m
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 20/08/2012 11:19, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
>
> We did ultimately decide to keep error reporting on for 12.04.1, as the
>> average number of errors per week met the requirement set forth by the
>> desktop team:
>>
> Hi,
>
> For the recor
Le 20/08/2012 11:19, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
We did ultimately decide to keep error reporting on for 12.04.1, as
the average number of errors per week met the requirement set forth by
the desktop team:
Hi,
For the record I think that number is buggy (and I raised that concerns
during laste wee
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Dylan McCall [2012-08-06 10:49 -0700]:
> > I don't run a computer lab, but I did upgrade someone's computer to
> > Ubuntu 12.04. A few days later, I felt like a total jerk as I stepped
> > him through disabling error popups using terminal comm
Sorry Martin, I posted with the wrong address initially.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Matthew Paul Thomas [2012-08-07 10:47 +0100]:
> > But optimizing purely for the number of error prompts is the wrong
> > goal.
>
> I don't think that this is being done here. I would ju
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> I fully agree. However, this only catches one aspect of the problem.
> Of course this will be vastly useful for the SRUs that we'll do, but
> it will be mostly noise and false expectations for the crashes that we
> won't fix in stables (which
Dylan McCall [2012-08-06 10:49 -0700]:
> I don't run a computer lab, but I did upgrade someone's computer to
> Ubuntu 12.04. A few days later, I felt like a total jerk as I stepped
> him through disabling error popups using terminal commands.
Admittedly I have done this to the Ubuntu box of my sis
Sebastien Bacher [2012-08-08 16:58 +0200]:
> Le 08/08/2012 16:31, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
> >>- password prompts locking your screen because an error happened to a
> >>service running with another user than yours
> >Is this happening automatically, or after you click on something?
> >
> It usually h
Matthew Paul Thomas [2012-08-07 10:47 +0100]:
> But optimizing purely for the number of error prompts is the wrong
> goal.
I don't think that this is being done here. I would just like to
suppress dialogs which are irrelevant for the user, and which are
unlikely to ever get fixed in a stable relea
Hello all,
sorry for the late answer, just returned from holidays.
Steve Langasek [2012-08-06 23:14 -0700]:
> In an earlier message, Martin spoke of whoopsie being a "great experiment".
For the "experiment" part I was referring to keeping Apport enabled in
a stable release. We did not really kno
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> - some of our engineers have issues login into the system to get access to
> the infos they need to work on the bugs, that situation is still not
> resolved after some months
This is fixed in trunk and is RT 55322: https://portal.admin.ca
Le 13/08/2012 17:20, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
- If the linked bug is marked as completed, but the Last seen column
contains the most recent published version of the package, the Last
seen column will be marked red. This is to indicate a *possible*
regression. I'm still playing with this. Because
Le 13/08/2012 17:20, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
In the most common problems table:
- If a linked bug report is marked as completed, the entire row will
be greyed out (but still clickable).
- If there is no linked bug report or the linked bug report is not
marked as completed, but the version in Las
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>
>> * did you say that fixed bugs should be colored differently in that
>> version?
>>
>
> Not fixed bugs, but problem pages that you've already visited. I'll try to
> find time this w
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> * clicking on some bugs give an error page,
>>
>> " Exception Type: IndexError Exception Value:
>>
>> list index out of range
>>
>> Exception Location: /srv/
>> errors.ubuntu.com/production/errors/cassandra.py in
>> get_traceback_for_buck
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> Well, we have two options there as far as I can tell. We can either
> disable crash reporting during logout or shutdown, or we can better
> handle the presentation of those errors on subsequent login.
>
> The latter is tackled by the multiple s
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 09/08/2012 10:22, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
>
> This has now landed:
> http://errors.ubuntu.com
>
> Thanks, that's a really nice improvement!
>
Cheers! Apologies again. This should've landed weeks ago, but was
complicated by my holiday
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> Ok. How soon could we expect the fix for that bug to be rolled out? Do I
> understand correctly that this can't be done quickly as a one-time query
> because the database structure needs to be updated first?
As mentioned out of band, this
Le 09/08/2012 10:22, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
This has now landed:
http://errors.ubuntu.com
Thanks, that's a really nice improvement!
- The individual problem pages now have their own graph, showing the
number of instances of the problem over time.
There is something weird there, did we change
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
>> - it's not possible to filter out issues which have been resolved from the
>> list (so it's hard to know what has been worked on and what needs work
>> still)
*snip*
> In the iteration of the website that's in the process of being
> deploye
Le 08/08/2012 16:31, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
- password prompts locking your screen because an error happened to a
service running with another user than yours
Is this happening automatically, or after you click on something?
It usually happens when a process from another user hits an issue, e.g
Sent using the wrong address. Apologies for the noise.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> - dialogs that appears out of nowhere while working and where you didn't get
> an issue (let's make an example "oneconf regular index update failed in
> background"), the dialog doesn
On 8 August 2012 09:04, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey again,
>
> I just crossed that online I figured I would point it as one of the examples
> I was making reference to:
> http://www.techdrivein.com/2012/08/how-to-disable-system-program-problem.html
And here's another one from a pretty popular U
Le 07/08/2012 08:14, Steve Langasek a écrit :
because the information available remains rather incomplete. I have not
heard the same feedback that you have about precise being buggy, and I'm not
sure that's actually representative of users' experience
Hey again,
I just crossed that online I fi
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:12:44PM +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > Evan, can you provide some clarity here? How many users is this average
> > taken from?
> It's currently using the total number of unique users for the day period:
> [defa
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
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
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> Evan, can you provide some clarity here? How many users is this average
> taken from?
It's currently using the total number of unique users for the day period:
[default@crashdb] get Counters [utf8('users:Ubuntu 12.04')];
...
=> (counter=20
-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
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:05:58PM +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> I don't think we can claim having insufficient resources to fix every
> issue as a defense for not wanting to know about the most pressing issues.
> Quite the opposite, actually. If we have fewer developers working on
> this, then i
Le 06/08/2012 19:49, Dylan McCall a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastien Bacher wrote on 06/08/12 12:48:
Le 06/08/2012 13:04, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
- It makes relaunching a crashed application much
Hi Seb,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 06:27:52PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> 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.
> The possible way out listed so far:
> - turn off whoopsie
> - increase our involvement o
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sebastien Bacher wrote on 06/08/12 12:48:
>>
>> Le 06/08/2012 13:04, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
>>>
>>> - It makes relaunching a crashed application much easier.
>>
>> Right, most of
(Trying to shorter the response a bit so the email keep being readeable)
Sure, but as Matthew points out, these dialogs serve two purposes:
1. To let the user know what just happened.
2. To let us prioritize work effectively.
They do not make promises about work getting done. If there's softwar
On 2 August 2012 17:31, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> What do people think about turning whoopsie off for 12.04.1?
I strongly support turning off the error message pop-ups for Ubuntu
12.04. I run a lab where we regularly get visitors who have never
knowingly used Linux on a PC before. While the popup
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey Evan, thanks for the reply!
Sure thing :)
> That's 10 times a week, that seems very often to me yes. I would be all for
> fixing the issues but in reality the resources allocated to that don't allow
> to make strong enough progress (
> Hello all,
>
> Sebastien Bacher [2012-08-02 23:31 +0200]:
>> I know that most of the cons are addressable but until we do address
>> them the consensus form the people I talked to seems to be that the
>> cost-benefit is largely not in our favour at this point so I would
>> recommend we do disable
Hello everyone. Apologies for the late reply; I was on holiday all
last week. Please CC myself and Matthew on replies to this thread as
we are not subscribed to the list.
Thanks for taking the time to raise this, Seb.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> That's something qu
On 08/02/2012 05:31 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey,
>
> That's something quite some people raised as an issue since precise, the
> frequent whoopsie dialogs in the LTS gives users the feeling that
> precise is unstable (it seems often qualified to buggier over previous
> release for no reason o
Le 06/08/2012 15:20, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
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
from applications.
Right, but if you look at e.g jockey issues some are in the backend side
of the software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastien Bacher wrote on 06/08/12 12:48:
>
> Le 06/08/2012 13:04, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
>>
>> - It makes relaunching a crashed application much easier.
>
> Right, most of the issues we get are with services and not
> applications though
T
Le 06/08/2012 13:04, Matthew Paul Thomas a écrit :
- - It makes relaunching a crashed application much easier.
Right, most of the issues we get are with services and not applications
though
- - From the next errors.ubuntu.com rollout, it will let release
managers and other contributors see wh
Le 06/08/2012 12:04, Evan Dandrea a écrit :
Hello everyone. Apologies for the late reply; I was on holiday all
last week. Please CC myself and Matthew on replies to this thread as
we are not subscribed to the list.
Thanks for taking the time to raise this, Seb.
Hey Evan, thanks for the reply!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastien Bacher wrote on 02/08/12 22:31:
> ...
>
> That's something quite some people raised as an issue since
> precise, the frequent whoopsie dialogs in the LTS gives users the
> feeling that precise is unstable
Maybe 12.04 is more stable than a
Hello all,
Sebastien Bacher [2012-08-02 23:31 +0200]:
> I know that most of the cons are addressable but until we do address
> them the consensus form the people I talked to seems to be that the
> cost-benefit is largely not in our favour at this point so I would
> recommend we do disable it by de
55 matches
Mail list logo
