[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: sentry evaluation
From:       Aleix Pol <aleixpol () kde ! org>
Date:       2023-06-04 17:26:07
Message-ID: CACcA1RpfA6W+-JPEL=9Dzs40_bDZp_zpBsBRDabYJAN1uBhK2Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I think it has been a good tool. There's some problems that are simply
too hard to report using bugzilla and these can be analyzed
accordingly. In the end, they are all problems that exist and users
face. I understand it's a problem that we don't really get the context
in these but maybe it's just a price to pay.

I'm sure there's still room for improvement, but I'm sure there's
crashes we don't have now because our devs have seem there that they
appear and addressed them, even if from a theoretical perspective.

Aleix

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:36 PM Harald Sitter <sitter@kde.org> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> We've had almost a year, albeit in a super limited capacity for git
> builds, with sentry (https://errors-eval.kde.org) and we should
> probably render a final verdict on the evaluation.
>
> Did you like it?
> What could be improved?
> Should we move ahead with a more permanent setup?
>
> The overall game plan would be to have drkonqi ask the user to opt
> into automatic crash submission when they open drkonqi so we get close
> to all crashes (the ones caught by kcrash) automatically filed into
> sentry from then on out. To increase exposure of this feature I'd also
> like to glue it into the feedback KCM but I'm not yet sure if it
> should be a separate setting or linked to the regular feedback
> categories, the former sounds more accessible. The current bugzilla
> based workflow would still be available for when the user actually
> wants to write a description.
>
> (previous discussion: https://markmail.org/thread/6y5paczdposz3aoj)
>
> HS
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]