ABRT?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 20:56 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> A good first step would be to draw up a list of ARBT bugs that we feel
> are critical for the Workstation user experience (this one [1]
> immediately springs to mind.) We should also ensure that any critical
> issues have been reported. It would be fantastic if someone could take
> this on.

OK. My list of critical bugs is small, but each one is very serious. You
already mentioned [1]. I will add to that [2] and [3]. [2] is fairly new
but occurs immediately nearly every time I report a bug, causing the
report to fail. [3] used to cause reports to fail at the very end of the
(excruciatingly long) bug report process roughly 50-80% of the time, but
nowadays I cannot get past [2].

[4] looks like a duplicate of [3], but I list it here because I filed
[3] specifically regarding Epiphany crashes, but (prior to the
introduction of [2] it would) regularly occurs for other programs as
well.

[5] is the "bug of general slowness" I mentioned earlier. I need to make
a correction: earlier in this thread I claimed reporting a WebKit bug
took me 40 minutes, and a gnote bug 15 minutes. In fact, reporting a
Nautilus bug took 40 minutes, and the gnote bug a much more reasonable 5
minutes. (I haven't timed a WebKit bug like I thought I had, but I
estimate it to be comparable in length.)

So that's four distinct bugs that I consider critical. I'll add on [6],
which doesn't happen to me very often, but I feel is worth mentioning
here. Beyond these, there are several design issues and minor bugs with
ABRT's GUI that need work, but I don't think are sufficiently serious to
block on or mention here. I've reported bugs for a few of few of these
in the past, and I'll do a couple more today.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050154
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109697
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047556
[4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055627
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055335
[6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047550

> Second, we (or I...) need to do a design review to see where we are
> and where we want to be with regards to the problem reporting user
> experience. There is a lot of background material that we can draw on
> here [2].
> 
> Once we've done these two steps, we'll be in a position to have a
> constructive conversation with the ABRT team.

My apologies to the ABRT team if my comments were at times too harsh or
nonconstructive. I'm hoping my comments help improve the default user
experience of Fedora Workstation and ABRT.

> There is also a more general issue here: traditionally, the Fedora
> release process has had a fairly limited definition of what
> constitutes a blocker, and there isn't a huge amount of downstream bug
> tracking in the run up to a release. If we want to raise the quality
> of the overall workstation experience, we'll need to expand the range
> of issues that are tracked for each release to include more general
> user experience bugs. This might well require changes to the
> workstation release process, as well as new release management roles.

Allan, I absolutely agree with you. Don't forget about updates, though:
all the pre-release validation in the world won't help if the updates
repository is the wild west.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20140717/afddf7c3/attachment.sig>