> From: Richard Marko <rmarko@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: ABRT, Faf and current state of bug reporting > Message-ID: <51768C56.2080306@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi all, > > I'll try to explain how crash reporting currently works in Fedora. > > Typical reporting process looks like this: > - crash is reported to Faf server which responds with 'known' or > 'unknown' reply; > - in case it responds with 'known' and the bug was already reported to > both the server and bugzilla, the reporting is stopped and only report > counts on the server are updated; > - if the crash is unknown, the reporting either continues or stops > depending on the configuration (for Gnome, only automated reporting to > faf is enabled); > - if enabled, the rest of the process continues with local or remote > retracing, reporting to bugzilla and attaching bugzilla ticket to faf > report. > > > This allows us to get accurate statistics of crashing applications while > not forcing every user to report to bugzilla. This is a trade-off > between getting accurate statistics and quality of the reports as > automated reports are anonymous which is also the reason why they can't > contain full backtrace with data. > > Then there are reports with no bugzilla attached as they were reported > automatically or no one finished the bugzilla reporting. These reports > get bugzilla ticket attached after there's person who finishes the > reporting or the ticket is created by the server. > > The intermediate part of the stack, faf server, is still pretty new so > please bear with us as we are dealing with lots of data. The goal of the > server is to provide accurate statistics of crashing applications and > clustering of the incoming reports. > > Hope this helps to clarify the situation a bit. Feedback is always > welcome, especially if you are receiving bug reports you are not happy with. > > Please use [1] for reporting issues if our mailing list [2] is not an > option for you. > > [1] https://github.com/abrt/faf/issues/new > [2] crash-catcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Best regards, > I understand that it is important for fedora to have statistics about issues with packages. But why you expect from a package maintainer to fix an issue, which is the main goal of a bugreport, without a full backtraece and user interaction. If you can't support more info's for a maintainer, than creating a Faf bugzilla report is useless and for the records. And again, if you want to increase the quality of fedora bugzilla, then force the user to write a comment. I don't expect to read a book, but clicking on a button without having to be able to grasp the problem into words is to easy Wolfgang -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
