launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[James Westby <jw+debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:12 +0000, Graham Binns <graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I like this idea, but we rejected it early on because there's some
> data in Apport blobs that can be used to populate the +filebug form.
> 
> Of course,  we could add it after the fact, for example updating the
> bug description to be apport description + user description and so on.
> I'm ambivalent about doing that though.
> 
> That said, it wouldn't be hard to have the job class tied to the bug
> once it's been filed and then, once the job's complete, updating the
> bug with the data from the blob.
> 
> I'll look into how the data from the blob is used again (I can't
> remember why we rejected this approach before; I'm assuming there's a
> good reason that I've forgotten). If it's possible to do it this way
> then maybe that's how we should proceeed.

A surprising number of people delete the apport info from the bug
description, so appending that afterwards would reduce the incidence of
that (at the cost of an extra bugmail I assume).

However, the title of the bug is what worries me. We have a tough enough
time with people deleting the apport-suggested title and putting in
"Crash!!!" or similar, and that is all we would have if apport didn't
suggest a title at all (I'm not sure how you would join the apport and
user set titles).

Also, usually people have no clue as to what caused the bug, so asking
them to fill in blank boxes will stop some people filing. At least
having them prepopulated allows people to write "I don't know what
happened, I was just asked to submit this" without feeling like they
aren't conveying any information whatsoever.

Thanks,

James