rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Nov 4 06:41:58 UTC 2010
On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> 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?
As a user wanting to report a bug, abrt is both.
On one hand it's a systematic way to report bugs, on the other hand it
forces me download debug packages and to struggle with its GUI.
Considering the facts that downloading 100MBs of debug-packages may not
always be applicable (E.g. when not having broadband access), that abrt
not always manages to correctly handle debug-infos, this costs.
That said, I repeatedly ended up with "deleting" abrt notifications and
to ignore it.
As a maintainer, abrt to me primarily means "wading through wakes of
hardly readable emails", mostly to scan them for useful information. I
many cases I ended up with closing BZ, because these emails did not
contain sufficient info.
That said, as a maintainer, abrt to me only has introduced a higher
noise/signal ratio in bugreports as before.
More information about the devel