awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Nov 4 06:28:38 UTC 2010
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:15 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I
> > guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
> > causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
> > whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people have experienced
> > crashes you haven't yet figured out how to fix a reason to stop
> > maintaining the software?
> Well, since you start with "beyond the time it takes to look", I guess
> that the time it takes to look won't be enough of an argument to put
> on the table. Then I won't have anything else to say. For me that is
> all that matters. Actually that is all that I give to Fedora: time.
> The question is
> Am I using the time efficiently? OR
> Are the these tools actually preventing me to be efficient during my
> available time?
Well, it seems to me that your proposal basically involves sticking
several artificial barriers in the process of filing crash reports to
Bugzilla in the hopes that we'll get fewer of them, and also trying to
get reports upstream by the initial reporters...which doesn't really
remove the time requirement, just dumps it on someone else (upstream).
I don't know, it just seems like the case where, when something crashes,
we catch the fact of the crash and the most useful data about it
(backtrace) and put it somewhere is better than the case where, when
something crashes, we don't do that. Even if we go with a system where
there's some kind of intermediary place for abrt reports to go,
*someone* is going to have to invest in the time to look at them. And
I'm not sure that introducing barriers to reporting just to try and get
fewer people to report crashes makes a whole lot of sense either.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel