DrKonqi improvement idea

Anders Lund anders at alweb.dk
Sun Mar 11 10:56:16 GMT 2012

S√łndag den 11. marts 2012 11:26:53 skrev Niko Sams:
> Hi,
> I'd like to talk about an idea on how DrKonqi (which is a really
> useful thing btw) could be
> further improved.
> In short: DrKonqi shouldn't create bugs directly but talk to a "layer"
> between.
> DrKonqi -> crashes.kde.org -> bugs.kde.org
> crashes.kde.org is a new web application - a bit similar to bugzilla:
> - lists all reported crashes with intelligent filtering duplicates
> - developers can set duplicates
> - developers can link a crash to a bug (or create automatically a bug
> for a crash)
> - developers can enter a solution (that will be presented to the user
> that hits this crash)
>    eg.:
>       - "update to version x.y"
>       - "temporary workaround: don't click button x"
>       - "you missconfigured x, see http://y.com how to fix"
>       - "the developers are aware of this issue but have not yet fixed
> it, see http://bugs.kde.org/... for details"
>       - "the bug is fixed but an update has not yet been released.
> Update to version x.y once it released."
> - comments can be added by users and developers (to ask how to reproduce
> etc)
> For the end user there could be the following scenarios:
> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org finds a duplicate crash in
> it's database and will tell the
>   user on how to proceed (see possible solutions above)
> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org can't find an exact duplicate
> and will show the user
>   all possible duplicates
> - user posts the crash, crashes.kde.org doesn't find a duplicate. User
> gets the possibility to
>   subscribe to updates for this crash to get an email when a solution
> for his crash was entered
>   by the developers
> One big difference in implementation I would propose:
> DrKonqi makes a *single* POST to crashes.kde.org including all
> information and then just shows
> a WebView where the server side can do anything. That gives greater
> independence of the used
> KDE version and changes on the server side.
> Advantages over current solution:
> - bugs.kde.org isn't filled with duplicates
> - crashes.kde.org can be specialized on crashes
> - sending a crash would not only help developers fixing that bug but
> also help the user by showing
>   a solution for his issue.
> What software could crashes.kde.org run? I'm not sure, maybe a
> bugzilla installation or something
> custom written. Or some other bugtracking software.
> So, what do you think?
> Niko


I think communicating back to the user this way would be a great improvement 
on user experience wrt bug handling. Sounds like the communication would be 
much more/better structured than it is now.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list