ABRT?

[David Tardon]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:10:39AM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM, David Tardon <dtardon at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > The backtrace will take less than a minute to generate (in most cases)
> > and
> > > is better than nothing.
> >
> > No, it is not. From packager's POV it is worse than nothing, as it
> > forces me to spend time on the bug, even though the expectation of
> > successuful identification of the problem is practically zero.
> >
> 
> You can debug crashes successfully even with such limited backtrace.

My experience with libreoffice bugs is very different.

> 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.

D.