DrKonqi improvement idea

[Steven Sroka]

On 2012-03-11, at 10:21 AM, Milian Wolff wrote:

> On Sunday 11 March 2012 11:26:53 Niko Sams wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> In short: I like the idea.
> 
> But I guess this needs someone to step up and actually write the required 
> software. I doubt our dear sysadmins can spare the time and I also wonder 
> whether it's worth to spent time on getting this quite custom functionality 
> into an existing bugtracker software instead of writing the software on once 
> own.

It would take quite some effort. I would say building this into bugs.kde.org would be the better option since the less layers, the complex the bug tracker is.

Side note: Niko, what you are proposing is something that Windows Error Reporting has been doing for years, and it seems to have served Microsoft well :)

The problem is… do we have the resources to implement it *if* it is the best solution for us?



> 
> Just for the ability to offer the user explicit feedback on his crash this 
> project would be very appreciated though!
> 
> bye
> -- 
> Milian Wolff
> mail at milianw.de
> http://milianw.de