On 11/04/2010 07:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really. When it comes to efficiency, it is. In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced efficiency of bug-hunting by flooding maintainers with low quality, often unusable reports and risen the communication churn related to BZs. Conversely, a similar consideration applies to the user side: abrt has lowered the threshold to report bugs and risen the expectations on report bugs responses. > Fixing crasher bugs > is surely an inherently desirable thing, even if it *does* add work > examining the reports. As I tried to express before, "serious crashers" likely would also have been reported without abrt. I seriously question, abrt has much helpful impact on reports related to "crashers". It's the "nagging"/"non-crasher" class of bugs, which is really reducing the "user-experience" of Fedora, exactly the class of bugs "abrt" is not designed to to not cover. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
