On 11/04/2010 03:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>>> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>>> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>> I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
>> It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
> Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)
Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to
Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been
closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the
resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's
resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool. :)
2216/31603 = 7%
With all due respect, to me, this qualifies as ineffective, esp when
considering the communicational overhead/noise attached to them.
IMO, the more interesting figure would be
* How many of these fixed bugs would not have been fixed if abrt wasn't
around. My (wild) guess is, not much more, because serious and
reproduceable bugs would have been manually reported in any case.
* How many of the "unfixed bugs" remained unfixed because abrt's reports
are not reporting sufficient information to allow maintainers to
investigate. As far as the packages I am maintaining are concerned, I
haven't been able to fix any bug in my packages due to abrt reports.
As far as I as a user am concerned, none of the bugs I had reported via
abrt was fixed. In both cases, however I am experiencing the noise abrt