Receiving bugs from "Crash Catcher" with [faf] in the subject line

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:55:02 +0200
Rave it <chat-to-me at raveit.de> wrote:

> Am Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:37:34 +0000
> schrieb devel-request at lists.fedoraproject.org:
> 
> For me as compiz maintainer those info's are complete useless whithout
> having more infomation what the user did if abrt would trigered.
> Maybe thy played arround without knowledge about the programm and did
> wrong things?
> Better the abrt guys forced the user to write what they did if abrt
> trigger a alarm.
> For me a bug whithout a comment isn't a bug.
> And honestly, if i get such bugs without a comment, i asked the user
> friendly what they did.
> In case of 50% i get no answer.

50% is much higher than I have gotten. ;) 

On any new abrt bugs I get, I typically: 

- Check to see if the submitter filled in the 'description of problem'
  which something I could try and work into a reproducer. I'd say
  perhaps 1% do. 

- If not, then I ask them what they were doing when the crash happened
  and if they can reproduce it. I'd say 90% never reply to that and the
  bug sits there until EOL. Some folks do, and those I can gather info
  from or ask various troubleshooting things which often results in a
  fix or at least an upstream bug. 

I'm not personally finding these faf reports of much use. They seem to
have a sanitized backtrace with even less info in them, and I also have
no way at all of finding out from people who saw this what they were
doing or ask them debugging steps. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130422/d101115a/attachment.sig>