> - 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. Good point. ABRT has become more slanted towards machine-generated bug reports unintentionally, mostly because the user interface and report format turned out this way: the implicit assumption that everything should be reported (and reported without much effort) is present in many aspects, e.g. the red "warning" sign for every unreported crash, green "you did good thing" sign for reported ones. The idea of an application only _assisting_ user to create human-made bug reports and making it easy to append the underlying technical information is still worth pursuing. It is only a matter of changing the ABRT interface to guide users this way, and to separate this way from semi-automatic crash reporting. It aslo makes sense to allow sending mostly machine-generated, few click "crash" reports to some new server/service. It should be possible to combine both approaches in a single application with some UI design thinking. We can change ABRT to encourage sending computer assisted, mostly human written bug reports to Bugzilla, and to enable semi-automatic crash reporting to some new server. Two ways of reporting. Not trying to combine them together as it is done now. Karel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
