awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Nov 4 06:55:02 UTC 2010
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 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.
This is another thing where we don't have any trouble identifying the
problem and the solution. Will Woods has had the debuginfofs system
sketched out for years to deal with this. What he doesn't have is the
time to write it (since he's busy with AutoQA). Anyone else could do 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.
I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really. Fixing crasher bugs
is surely an inherently desirable thing, even if it *does* add work
examining the reports.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel