bugzilla bugzappers?

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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).
>

Correct. We shouldn't miss the fact that it takes less time to process
the backtraces if we wrote the code ourselves.

For a bug that I can reproduce, the time it takes for me to fix it
might be comparable to the time it takes me to report it upstream and
get it fixed there.

The extreme inefficiency comes from the bugs that I can't reproduce,
the upstream can't reproduce, and the user isn't responding. And this
happens *a lot*. Most of the time, they don't even put down the steps
to reproduce. Can we at least mandate including the steps to reproduce
in the ABRT reports?

Orcan