On 6/28/07, Louis Lenders xerox_xerox2000@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Ben Hodgetts (Enverex <ben <at> atomnet.co.uk> writes:
Me and Chris Morgan changed it to this because we were sick of people pasting pages and pages of terminal output into the What works or What doesn't work boxes of the test data which is NOT where it belongs. The information in test data should be written in plain English, not pastes of lots of (mostly useless) terminal output which just looks awful and isn't any use to most users of the AppDB.
I agree with point 2 but the problem is most AppDB submitters just... too stupid to be able to use some sense or judgement about what they are asked to actually put in the test reports.
What you'd rather change it to would make the previous situation much, much worse so under no circumstances should it be changed to that though.
Ben
Then i would vote for a kind of extra field in which users can paste their crash/debug output , but that field wouldn't get sent into the appdb. Something like that should be possible i guess. Otherwise i fear in many cases i cannot really judge if the test result lots are valid or not......
How do you normally judge if the result is valid or not? What if the result says that everything works? It seems like any result could be faked, and we can't reject a test result from a user that had problems just because a handful of other users didn't.
What else can we do with the issue you raised in #1? If users report their app doesn't work but don't report the crash data then at least we know the app doesn't work and thats valuable data. If it is too difficult to report bugs in bugzilla we should see if there are ways to assist with this. For instance we could have an option on the test submission page of the appdb where a user could submit a new bug by attaching the crash log and this bug would be linked to the application/version they were submitting the test results for and also noted in the text of the test result. Duplicating crash/bug reports in the appdb seems the opposite of where we should be heading.
I'm not entirely sure what your point #2 is. You are arguing that we want to see crash results in test submissions because then we can reply with a suggestion about how to fix the issue? It seems like this is exactly the kind of thing we want in bugzilla since it reflects issues users have with Wine. In the example you used in #2 it seems like the issue is that the application wasn't installed under Wine. I'd recommend that in the cases where wine can't find dlls that we popup a dialog box and suggest that the user install the application under wine and that this should install the required dlls. If this dll is something wine needs to ship with then this is a legit bug and should go in bugzilla.
I guess my point about #2 is that assuming the user didn't do something really crazy, the issues the user has tend to be deficiencies in wine or its documentation and these really are legitimate issues that should be addressed.
Chris