Yeah, I know that. I do it everytime the upload fails - mostly when the report exceeds 200 MB. But what does it have to do with what have been discussed? If your reply refers to comment #3, then please allow me to be clearer:
1. Crash 2. Apport: "Oops, let's upload a report to the developers?". Me: "Yay, why not!" 3. Apport uploads, finishes 4. Bug is checked against database of bugs: it is found to already exist 5. I choose not to open new bug, and comment in existing one 6. I am told to open a new bug nonetheless 7. I do so 8. I am explained the new bug had to be opened to upload its log files and backtraces 9. I wonder: didn't I already upload them back in point 3 (twice)? Does Launchpad trash my data when bug pre-exists? If so, why Apport doesn't check if it pre-exists before point 2 (thus effectively reverting the order of points 2 and 4)? 10. Concise final consideration: if Apport didn't work backwards, or data uploaded to Launchpad wasn't trashed, the whole process would make much more sense, and the 3 months time span between point 3 and point 7 wouldn't have been wasted, for developers would have already had all the necessary information to debug the crash. Many thanks. -- nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/515495 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
