Am Montag, den 18.01.2010, 21:58 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
> crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read "I
> have no idea what I was doing when foo crashed", even if they
> submitted
> it straight after the crash. Only 2 out of ~40 contained the
> information
> I needed to reproduce the crash reliably (as a site note: both are
> fixed, so the number of crashes fixed it 4 but not 3 as I wrote in my
> initial mail. 4/40 is still a bad percentage)
'Bad' in what way? it's probably 4 - almost certainly 2 or 3 - more than
you would have fixed if abrt didn't exist.
4 is an absolute number while I was talking about a percentage. 10% of
useful bug reports means I spent a lot of time on the other 90%. If I
just got the 4 bug reports from active testers who are willing to
provide all the necessary information, I would have been able to fix the
bugs too, but without wasting time.
But it's getting better. ABRT is getting better and I was just able to
(hopefully) close another two bugs. :)
I used to work in a supermarket, and noticed that it'd be much
easier to
run a supermarket smoothly if there were no customers. They do insist on
coming in and messing up the shelves and dirtying up the floors and
asking stupid questions.
In much the same way, it'd be ever so much easier to run a distribution
really *efficiently* if no-one ever used it...:)
In that analogy, most of the customers return something that they bought
before in your supermarket. I guess you don't have a problem giving them
their money back, but you expect them to at least tell you what's wrong
with your goods instead of just throwing them at you. ;)
Regards,
Christoph