Created attachment 76821 [details] [review]
patch.

this patch
- fixes a bug for the evince-crash stock answer (now bug status is properly set to needinfo, instead of fixed),
- replaces the standard bad_stacktrace stock answer for totem with a specific one that includes the link to more debug information (please DO check if my if/else construction is correct - thanks),
- makes epiphany's crash-flash-plugin stock answer also available for galeon,
- makes the dupe+needinfo stock answer also available for bugs in needinfo state,
- now consistently uses "thanks for taking the time" instead of "thanks for reporting".

hmm. marking as needs-work, i'd like to get a different approach for this.

Created attachment 77775 [details] [review]
patch.

updated version, containing explicit stock answers for several products.
still needs-work because i'm waiting for feedback from http://blogs.gnome.org/view/aklapper/2006/12/06/0

Created attachment 77925 [details] [review]
next version.

Created attachment 78409 [details] [review]
new patch

added EOG and gnome-commander, as both products get a lot of useless traces.
i also added the comment to start the app as normal after installing additional debug packages, because one user asked me by private email "how to start the debug version" of the application, and a "debug packages, as far as they are provided by your distribution" to avoid follow-up questions like "i cannot find a debug package for gnome-commander in ubuntu edgy eft".
i still wonder whether we should explain that this packages often have a "dbg", "debug" or "dbgsym" ending or if this should remain at the wiki page.

feedback very welcome.

the information about the "-dbg" suffix is crucial/vital/thought-breaking. One additional default sentence and many people will probably know what to install.

2. Cant you definde 
 [% defStocklink=" foo "%]
 [% IF bug.product == 'product' %]

      addStockLink(defStocklink + "specific text")

Olav?

i just want a better feedback rate. i've been reading through 900 nautilus crasher bugs through the last week and most of them were useless, less than 50 had traces with symbols and line numbers.

i'd love to add this info for more apps than the ones already covered by my patch and have a more generic way to add this information, like checking if there is an explicit "install the following packages: X, Y, Z" information available for a product, and if there isn't, we should fall back to the general "bad_stacktrace" stock response that we currently use.

any coders willing to take this up?

Comment on attachment 78409 [details] [review]
new patch

>Index: bugzilla-newer/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl

>+      addStockLink("Thanks for taking the time to report this [% terms.bug %].\nUnfortunately, that stack trace is missing some elements that will help a lot to solve the problem, so it will be hard for the developers to fix that crash. Could you please install some debugging packages \[1\], start the application as normal, and reproduce the crash, if possible?\n\nOnce bug-buddy pops up, you can find the stacktrace in the \"details\", now containing way more information. Please copy that stacktrace and paste it as a comment here. Thanks in advance!\n\n\[1\] debugging packages for nautilus, gtk, glib, gnome-vfs, libgnome and libgnomeui (as far as those packages are provided by your distribution). More details can be found here: http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces/DistroSpecificInstructions", 'bad_stacktrace', 'needinfo', '', '1');

\"details\" is not allowed. It will cause problems elsewhere as addStockLink is just a javascript function which has to write HTML later. Either do not use \" or fix that function. Another option is making some javascript hash/dictionary and making having some javascript function write out the HTML based on that.

Do not understand why you use \[ and \].

Regarding the content: You are specifying debug packages which under at least Mandiva will have them install the GNOME 1.x versions.

Also, why are you linking to DistroSpecificInstructions?

Olav:

> Do not understand why you use \[ and \].

me neither, sigh.
i've changed    \[ \]         to   [ ]
and             \"details\"   to   Details

> Regarding the content: You are specifying debug packages which under at 
> least Mandiva will have them install the GNOME 1.x versions.

i'm not specifying debug packages, i just list the names of apps/libs that the user should install packages for, not the package names themselves.
it's unfortunate that this won't work for mandriva - another comment that sometimes there's a "2" in the name indicating that it's for GNOME 2.x sounds pretty vague and confusing to me... proposals? *shrug*

> Also, why are you linking to DistroSpecificInstructions?

counterquestion: what else should i link to?
to http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces/, so the user needs to read again what i have already written, needs to find and click on the distrospecific link, and gets annoyed by the waste of time? :-/

Created attachment 78577 [details] [review]
updated patch

I believe this is obsolete. After a phone conference with andre and guenther, we decided to move explanatory stuff to the GettingTraces wiki pages. The various reasons include better flexibility and maintainability.

Christian: 
"Jein." ;-)

there's still the evince-crasher *bug* (setting the report's state to fixed instead of needinfo), and we will likely introduce two additional stock answers for python and mono crashers, as discussed at the phone conference. let's keep this open until we have reached a consensus state.

and i still want the "crash-flash-plugin" stock answer for galeon, and i still want the dupe+needinfo answer for bugs in needinfo state. so it's still valid, will rework the bug to only address those mentioned issues that hopefully should not really need discussion. ;-)

true, already forgot that point. what about the summary?

Created attachment 79529 [details] [review]
latest patch

nothing experimental (promise), only one bug fix and two cases i'd really like to have for comfortable working.

committed:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/bugzilla-newer/trunk/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl?r1=612&r2=662

thanks olav for the quick review. :-)