On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > 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. This is another thing where we don't have any trouble identifying the problem and the solution. Will Woods has had the debuginfofs system sketched out for years to deal with this. What he doesn't have is the time to write it (since he's busy with AutoQA). Anyone else could do it instead, though. > 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. I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really. Fixing crasher bugs is surely an inherently desirable thing, even if it *does* add work examining the reports. -- 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
