On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 14:21 +0200, David Tardon wrote: > My experience with libreoffice bugs is very different. I would imagine that LO bugs are more difficult than typical, since LO is of a scale incomparable to our other applications. A partial backtrace is often enough to debug many issues. It's definitely not as useful as a full one. > > Making > > a random packager's life a little easier is not worth making our > product > > look bad. > > Well, packagers can be viewed as users of of the abrt bug reports. So, > to paraphrase your words: if you create reports that work for > maintainers of big applications with hundreds of thousands of lines of > code, it will work well for maintainers of small applications too. > However, if you create reports that only work well for maintainers of > small applications with a few thousands of lines of code, which those > maintainers know from top to bottom because they wrote it, many other > maintainers will find your reports unusable. > > > If you really need further details from a crash, you can always > > ask the user to provide them. > > Sure. Except that 80% of them will not answer and 80% of the rest will > only say that they cannot add anything because they do not remember > how > the crash happened. All of your points are valid. There's a trade-off here. I think the decision is very clear for just one reason: 90% of the time when I try to report a bug, ABRT works for 15-40 minutes then says the problem is unreportable. Subjecting users to that by default is not OK, even if it means the other 10% of quality bug reports don't come in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
