Receiving bugs from "Crash Catcher" with [faf] in the subject line

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 17:48 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:55:02 +0200
> Rave it <chat-to-me at raveit.de> wrote:
> 
> > Am Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:37:34 +0000
> > schrieb devel-request at lists.fedoraproject.org:
> > 
> > For me as compiz maintainer those info's are complete useless whithout
> > having more infomation what the user did if abrt would trigered.
> > Maybe thy played arround without knowledge about the programm and did
> > wrong things?
> > Better the abrt guys forced the user to write what they did if abrt
> > trigger a alarm.
> > For me a bug whithout a comment isn't a bug.
> > And honestly, if i get such bugs without a comment, i asked the user
> > friendly what they did.
> > In case of 50% i get no answer.
> 
> 50% is much higher than I have gotten. ;) 
> 
> On any new abrt bugs I get, I typically: 
> 
> - Check to see if the submitter filled in the 'description of problem'
>   which something I could try and work into a reproducer. I'd say
>   perhaps 1% do. 
> 
> - If not, then I ask them what they were doing when the crash happened
>   and if they can reproduce it. I'd say 90% never reply to that and the
>   bug sits there until EOL. Some folks do, and those I can gather info
>   from or ask various troubleshooting things which often results in a
>   fix or at least an upstream bug. 

The same workflow, same problems with the exception that after a while I
close as insufficientdata (to avoid having to wait for EOL).

Pierre