ABRT, Faf and current state of bug reporting

[Rave it]

> From: Richard Marko <rmarko at redhat.com>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> 	<devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: ABRT, Faf and current state of bug reporting
> Message-ID: <51768C56.2080306 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'll try to explain how crash reporting currently works in Fedora.
> 
> Typical reporting process looks like this:
>  - crash is reported to Faf server which responds with 'known' or
> 'unknown' reply;
>  - in case it responds with 'known' and the bug was already reported to
> both the server and bugzilla, the reporting is stopped and only report
> counts on the server are updated;
>  - if the crash is unknown, the reporting either continues or stops
> depending on the configuration (for Gnome, only automated reporting to
> faf is enabled);
>  - if enabled, the rest of the process continues with local or remote
> retracing, reporting to bugzilla and attaching bugzilla ticket to faf
> report.
> 
> 
> This allows us to get accurate statistics of crashing applications while
> not forcing every user to report to bugzilla. This is a trade-off
> between getting accurate statistics and quality of the reports as
> automated reports are anonymous which is also the reason why they can't
> contain full backtrace with data.
> 
> Then there are reports with no bugzilla attached as they were reported
> automatically or no one finished the bugzilla reporting. These reports
> get bugzilla ticket attached after there's person who finishes the
> reporting or the ticket is created by the server.
> 
> The intermediate part of the stack, faf server, is still pretty new so
> please bear with us as we are dealing with lots of data. The goal of the
> server is to provide accurate statistics of crashing applications and
> clustering of the incoming reports.
> 
> Hope this helps to clarify the situation a bit. Feedback is always
> welcome, especially if you are receiving bug reports you are not happy with.
> 
> Please use [1] for reporting issues if our mailing list [2] is not an
> option for you.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/abrt/faf/issues/new
> [2] crash-catcher at lists.fedorahosted.org
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
I understand that it is important for fedora to have statistics about issues with packages.
But why you expect from a package maintainer to fix an issue, which is the main goal of a bugreport, without a full backtraece and user interaction. 
If you can't support more info's for a maintainer, than creating a Faf bugzilla report is useless and for the records.
And again, if you want to increase the quality of fedora bugzilla, then force the user to write a comment.
I don't expect to read a book, but clicking on a button without having to be able to grasp the problem into words is to easy

Wolfgang