ABRT?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 14:21 +0200, David Tardon wrote:
> My experience with libreoffice bugs is very different.

I would imagine that LO bugs are more difficult than typical, since LO
is of a scale incomparable to our other applications.

A partial backtrace is often enough to debug many issues. It's
definitely not as useful as a full one.

> > Making
> > a random packager's life a little easier is not worth making our
> product
> > look bad.
> 
> Well, packagers can be viewed as users of of the abrt bug reports. So,
> to paraphrase your words: if you create reports that work for
> maintainers of big applications with hundreds of thousands of lines of
> code, it will work well for maintainers of small applications too.
> However, if you create reports that only work well for maintainers of
> small applications with a few thousands of lines of code, which those
> maintainers know from top to bottom because they wrote it, many other
> maintainers will find your reports unusable.
> 
> > If you really need further details from a crash, you can always
> > ask the user to provide them.
> 
> Sure. Except that 80% of them will not answer and 80% of the rest will
> only say that they cannot add anything because they do not remember
> how
> the crash happened.

All of your points are valid. There's a trade-off here. I think the
decision is very clear for just one reason: 90% of the time when I try
to report a bug, ABRT works for 15-40 minutes then says the problem is
unreportable. Subjecting users to that by default is not OK, even if it
means the other 10% of quality bug reports don't come in.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20140717/8c671b5c/attachment.sig>