On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:36:03PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Users have to provide information
> about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just the
> same as in a manually-initiated bug report.
IMHO the big plus of abrt is it triggers even when the user is not
giving his full attention to the app and not checking what it does
exactly when it crashes (typical example is multitasking and doing stuff
in 3-4 apps when one dies). There is a huge class of crashes that were
not reported before because the user had no idea what the app was doing
exactly when it crashed and could not reproduce it with debuginfo later.
For me as a bug reporter it is also a downside. E.g. Miro seems to crash
still a lot and abrt catches it but I do not have a clue what really
happened. From past experiences reporting such bugs does not bring a big
benefit. The bugs will rot till the release is EOL and because I don't
know how to reproduce it, I cannot test, whether it is fixed on a newer
release.
But I just found abrt pretty confortable when repoquery backtraced. For
all these yum related bugs I encounter I normally know pretty well what
I did and not having to click through Bugzilla till I am at the right
bug entering page is a huge time saver.
Regards
Till