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.
> a random packager's life a little easier is not worth making our
> 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
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.