On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Con:
* Unfortunately 3 out of ~ 40 reports is not a good percentage.
Approximately the same as manual reports, in my experience.
* As already pointed out by Michael Schwendt some time ago,
there
were some good traces in the beginning but then they became
unusable. Starting with abrt 1.0.2 it got better again but I
still get bogus reports sometimes.
Again, that's hardly unique :)
* As a maintainer abrt causes a lot of work. You have to
respond
to the tickets, ask for details, explain how to install
debuginfo manually and tell people that their
This is what Bugzappers is for. If your component isn't being handled by
Bugzappers, please by all means ask on test list or #fedora-bugzappers
IRC if any group members are interested in helping you out with triage.
* abrt is frustrating for maintainers: Upstream refuses to
accept
the backtraces generated by abrt. Happened to me three times.
Did they have a legitimate reason? If so, it would help to explain what
it is. If not, that's hardly abrt's fault.
* abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first
"No
need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets."
Can somebody confirm my observations?
Not really, no. Anything new will have _some_ negative effects. That
doesn't make it bad in res totam.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net