DrKonqi improvement idea

Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin at kde.org
Tue Mar 13 16:25:31 GMT 2012

On Tuesday 13 March 2012 17:00:29 Christoph Feck wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2012 10:30:59 Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Quoting Ben Cooksley <bcooksley at kde.org>:
> > > Whilst I have not evaluated it's compatibility with Bugzilla 4.2,
> > > I do not suppose anyone has looked at
> > > https://launchpad.net/bugzilla-traceparser ?
> > 
> > The traceparser might be a good-enough solution for finding
> > duplicates and helping the reading of backtraces, yes.
> > 
> > This thread is a bit more about solving the inital problem in a
> > different way since the actual usage of bugzilla for processing
> > backtraces is something that we probably want to sidestep in the
> > first place.  Here is why;
> > 
> > * users that get a crash have to have a bugzilla account already if
> > they want to give it to us.
> > This is a problem because developers don't get a good insight of
> > how often things crash due to this higher level of contribution.
> > Yes, reporting a backtrace makes the user a contributor!
> > 
> > * users that get a crash are asked to themselves figure out if the
> > trace is a duplicate and are offered the option to add a cc instead
> > of a new report.
> > This is a problem because users are not capable of doing this and
> > it feels less-then-helpful to just cc yourself on a bugreport,
> > which means a lot of people just choose the safe route of creating
> > a new report.
> I have long been interested why users keep reporting duplicates.
> Instead of guessing, let's just ask them in a nice way. I added
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=295919#c1 to a frequently
> reported bug, and maybe we can this way get some insights. Unless
> someone objects, this survey could be sent to reporters of frequently
> reported crashes (maybe not in the comment, but per reply).
> My guess is that DrKonqi simply does not make it clear that the bug
> has already been reported several times.
quite a good idea and I just added the text to my snippets :-) May I suggest 
to also add a keyword or flag to the bugs so that we can easily search for 
those where we asked the users?

Maybe a flag "quality-survey-asked" for when you request and "quality-survey-
provided" when the user provided the feedback.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20120313/5dd87ce2/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list