On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people have experienced crashes you haven't yet figured out how to fix a reason to stop maintaining the software?
Well, since you start with "beyond the time it takes to look", I guess that the time it takes to look won't be enough of an argument to put on the table. Then I won't have anything else to say. For me that is all that matters. Actually that is all that I give to Fedora: time.
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.
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.
Ralf