On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:36:03PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot 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. For me as a bug reporter it is also a downside. E.g. Miro seems to crash still a lot and abrt catches it but I do not have a clue what really happened. From past experiences reporting such bugs does not bring a big benefit. The bugs will rot till the release is EOL and because I don't know how to reproduce it, I cannot test, whether it is fixed on a newer release. But I just found abrt pretty confortable when repoquery backtraced. For all these yum related bugs I encounter I normally know pretty well what I did and not having to click through Bugzilla till I am at the right bug entering page is a huge time saver. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpDk5CApRWVl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
