On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Pro:
* abrt is a help for developers: I received one positive feedback
from a developer: The backtrace looks "interesting" but cannot
be fixed without a major rewrite of the app.
* abrt helps to fix bugs sometimes: So far abrt helped me to fix
three crashes in two apps (in Fedora and upstream).
Con:
* Unfortunately 3 out of ~ 40 reports is not a good percentage.
I'm open to any ideas how to improve this.
* As already pointed out by Michael Schwendt some time ago, there
were some good traces in the beginning but then they became
unusable. Starting with abrt 1.0.2 it got better again but I
still get bogus reports sometimes.
* As a maintainer abrt causes a lot of work. You have to respond
to the tickets, ask for details, explain how to install
debuginfo manually and tell people that their
How this differ from any other bugs? ABRT just helps users to report
bugs so we get reports even from users who wouldn't bother otherwise.
* abrt is frustrating for maintainers: Upstream refuses to accept
the backtraces generated by abrt. Happened to me three times.
If the backtrace is complete then there is no reason why upstream
shouldn't accept it, but if there is a problem with installing debuginfo
then there is nothing ABRT can do (except to prevent user to send a
report, but what's the threshold here?).
* abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first "No
need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets."
They can always remove it and go back to previous reporting mechanism
using bugzilla web form.
Can somebody confirm my observations?
Regards,
Christoph
begin:vcard
fn:Jiri Moskovcak
n:Moskovcak;Jiri
email;internet:jmoskovc@xxxxxxxxxx
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
