On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:26:06PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Utterly useless. I already have a HUGE number of bug reports. The problem > > is that 90% of them are essentially useless when first reported. It requires > > several back/forth interactions between myself & the bug reporter to get > > enough information to diagnose & resolve the problem. If we create a system > > where we bombard maintainers with bugreports & no scope for user interaction > > they'll end up directly in /dev/null, and further discourage maintainers > > from addressing even bugs with enough info. > > Is the upstream automated kerneloops stuff a counter example > methodology? Or does that only work because they get sooooooo many > more crash reports that the statistics become a useful way to sort? kerneloops is an awesome tool, but it's not a silver bullet replacement for bug reporting for the kernel. For one thing, it doesn't track the many kernel bugs we get where there isn't a backtrace. (which are the majority) Most are of the form "my wireless stopped working" "suspend doesn't work" etc. These kinds of bugs need back and forth that only bugzilla or email can provide. A drive-by "my suspend broke" report would be utterly useless. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
