On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:31 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 13:02 +0000, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> Having said that the things that can be done with a mere backtrace
are
> limited. I would almost always need to look at the corefile too, and
> would be frustrated if it wasn't available. Perhaps the workflow
that
> starts with ABRT providing a backtrace needs to be significantly
> different to the workflow for a manually submitted bug. More
automated
> perhaps?
>
> What if every component had a placeholder bug for undiagnosed ABRT
> info. Keeping all of them together would help to gauge which are
> significant and which are one-in-a-million cosmic rays flipping RAM
> bits etc.
I think it should work more like the mozilla crash handling system.
They
file automatic crash reports in a completely different database which
is
more optimized for e.g. data mining and is less work for the
maintainer
on a per-bug basis. So, instead of replying and keeping track of every
user crash manually the maintainer gets list of "top crashers it
latest
version", "new crashes this week", etc.
In case you're interested this is how the mozilla database looks:
http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl(a)redhat.com alexander.larsson(a)gmail.com
He's a lonely devious filmmaker who hangs with the wrong crowd. She's a
tortured tempestuous angel who hides her beauty behind a pair of thick-framed
spectacles. They fight crime!