On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> I >> guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports >> causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out >> whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people have experienced >> crashes you haven't yet figured out how to fix a reason to stop >> maintaining the software? >> > > Well, since you start with "beyond the time it takes to look", I guess > that the time it takes to look won't be enough of an argument to put > on the table. Then I won't have anything else to say. For me that is > all that matters. Actually that is all that I give to Fedora: time. > > The question is > Am I using the time efficiently? OR > Are the these tools actually preventing me to be efficient during my > available time? As a user wanting to report a bug, abrt is both. On one hand it's a systematic way to report bugs, on the other hand it forces me download debug packages and to struggle with its GUI. Considering the facts that downloading 100MBs of debug-packages may not always be applicable (E.g. when not having broadband access), that abrt not always manages to correctly handle debug-infos, this costs. That said, I repeatedly ended up with "deleting" abrt notifications and to ignore it. As a maintainer, abrt to me primarily means "wading through wakes of hardly readable emails", mostly to scan them for useful information. I many cases I ended up with closing BZ, because these emails did not contain sufficient info. That said, as a maintainer, abrt to me only has introduced a higher noise/signal ratio in bugreports as before. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
