Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010 à 12:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt a écrit : > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:36:03 +0100, Nicolas wrote: > > > Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit : > > > Users have to provide information > > > about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just > the > > > same as in a manually-initiated bug report. > > > > IMHO the big plus of abrt is it triggers even when the user is not > > giving his full attention to the app and not checking what it does > > exactly when it crashes (typical example is multitasking and doing > stuff > > in 3-4 apps when one dies). There is a huge class of crashes that > were > > not reported before because the user had no idea what the app was > doing > > exactly when it crashed and could not reproduce it with debuginfo > later. > > A downside is that ABRT is triggered for all sorts of weird > memory/heap > corruption that isn't reproducible. Stability problems with RAM chips > are widespread. > > A bugzilla stock response that points at "memtester" and "memtest86+" > will likely be needed more often. That seems totally unecessary and counter-productive to me. You can distinguish between local memory problems and actual hard-to-trigger bugs without bothering users by checking if the trace is reported by abrt for other systems. I know it's very human to shoot the messenger but packagers & developpers should resist the urge to make tester life miserable to punish them from reporting inconvenient problems. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
