(In reply to Will Kahn-Greene [:willkg] ET needinfo? me from comment #3) > The real problem here is that I didn't really know how we were going to use the `mac_crash_info` data, didn't know what questions we were trying to answer using search, or how to index it when I was working on bug #1709658. Because of that, it's never been very usable and there are a few bugs stemming from that. (bug #1714190, bug #1713355) > I think we should leave the structure of the `mac_crash_info` data (as contained by crash reports and searched by Socorro) more or less as it is -- in other words in as raw a format as possible. That gives us maximum flexibility in deciding how to search on it. I don't know how many others have been searching on the `mac_crash_info` data. I have, and I'm still not confident I know all the questions I want to ask of it. > I don't think we should change rust-minidump stackwalker. Instead, we should go back and figure out what questions are we trying to answer, what does the `mac_crash_info` structure look like, and how we want to index it so that we can answer the questions we want to answer. I disagree. I think we should go back to not reporting empty `mac_crash_info` structures.
Bug 1748248 Comment 5 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Will Kahn-Greene [:willkg] ET needinfo? me from comment #3) > The real problem here is that I didn't really know how we were going to use the `mac_crash_info` data, didn't know what questions we were trying to answer using search, or how to index it when I was working on bug #1709658. Because of that, it's never been very usable and there are a few bugs stemming from that. (bug #1714190, bug #1713355) > I think we should leave the structure of the `mac_crash_info` data (as contained by crash reports and searched by Socorro) more or less as it is -- in other words in as raw a format as possible. That gives us maximum flexibility in deciding how to search on it. I don't know how many others have been searching on the `mac_crash_info` data. I have, and I'm still not confident I know all the questions I want to ask of it. Note that Apple doesn't document any of the `mac_crash_info` data, so we can only learn by experience what it contains. > I don't think we should change rust-minidump stackwalker. Instead, we should go back and figure out what questions are we trying to answer, what does the `mac_crash_info` structure look like, and how we want to index it so that we can answer the questions we want to answer. I disagree. I think we should go back to not reporting empty `mac_crash_info` structures.
(In reply to Will Kahn-Greene [:willkg] ET needinfo? me from comment #3) > The real problem here is that I didn't really know how we were going to use the `mac_crash_info` data, didn't know what questions we were trying to answer using search, or how to index it when I was working on bug #1709658. Because of that, it's never been very usable and there are a few bugs stemming from that. (bug #1714190, bug #1713355) > I think we should leave the structure of the `mac_crash_info` data (as contained in crash reports and searched by Socorro) more or less as it is -- in other words in as raw a format as possible. That gives us maximum flexibility in deciding how to search on it. I don't know how many others have been searching on the `mac_crash_info` data. I have, and I'm still not confident I know all the questions I want to ask of it. Note that Apple doesn't document any of the `mac_crash_info` data, so we can only learn by experience what it contains. > I don't think we should change rust-minidump stackwalker. Instead, we should go back and figure out what questions are we trying to answer, what does the `mac_crash_info` structure look like, and how we want to index it so that we can answer the questions we want to answer. I disagree. I think we should go back to not reporting empty `mac_crash_info` structures.