ABRT frustrating for users and developers

[Till Maas]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:36:03PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >  Users have to provide information
> > about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just the
> > same as in a manually-initiated bug report. 
> 
> IMHO the big plus of abrt is it triggers even when the user is not
> giving his full attention to the app and not checking what it does
> exactly when it crashes (typical example is multitasking and doing stuff
> in 3-4 apps when one dies). There is a huge class of crashes that were
> not reported before because the user had no idea what the app was doing
> exactly when it crashed and could not reproduce it with debuginfo later.

For me as a bug reporter it is also a downside. E.g. Miro seems to crash
still a lot and abrt catches it but I do not have a clue what really
happened. From past experiences reporting such bugs does not bring a big
benefit. The bugs will rot till the release is EOL and because I don't
know how to reproduce it, I cannot test, whether it is fixed on a newer
release.

But I just found abrt pretty confortable when repoquery backtraced. For
all these yum related bugs I encounter I normally know pretty well what
I did and not having to click through Bugzilla till I am at the right
bug entering page is a huge time saver.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100117/b7e264c3/attachment.bin