On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 10:50 -0500, James Laska wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 10:51 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > > 3) Reporting to bugzilla is a mistake. > > Not discounting the idea, but just looking for more detail. What > alternatives would you want to see? More kerneloops-like aggregate data > collection, or something else? Basically, yes. For a few reasons: - Crash analysis requires more semantic knowledge of the content of the report than bugzilla is really designed for. I can have 17 reports with different backtraces all in different applications, but where the bug is "this exclusive section in this library is being called without the lock held". It's not reasonable to expect to add that kind of content awareness to bugzilla, and doing it from bz clients is clumsy at best. - Bugzilla forces you to frame the discussion in terms of a component. That's probably right for applications. It's usually wrong for libraries, drivers, servers, or kernels. You want to start from the report as a gestalt, and not assign blame to a component until you actually know what's going on. (This is a condemnation of bugzilla in general, but it's made worse by the next point.) - Separating machine-generated content from human-generated content is valuable for the developer. The two require different mental processes to handle. I have a much stronger guarantee that the abrt bug contains facts, but I also know there's no point in asking for more information. Reading a crash report is looking at structured data and divining patterns. Reading a human's bug report is listening to a story. Left brain, right brain. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
