On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Con: > > * Unfortunately 3 out of ~ 40 reports is not a good percentage. Approximately the same as manual reports, in my experience. > * 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. Again, that's hardly unique :) > * 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 This is what Bugzappers is for. If your component isn't being handled by Bugzappers, please by all means ask on test list or #fedora-bugzappers IRC if any group members are interested in helping you out with triage. > * abrt is frustrating for maintainers: Upstream refuses to > accept > the backtraces generated by abrt. Happened to me three times. Did they have a legitimate reason? If so, it would help to explain what it is. If not, that's hardly abrt's fault. > * abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first "No > need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets." > > Can somebody confirm my observations? Not really, no. Anything new will have _some_ negative effects. That doesn't make it bad in res totam. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
