- Separating machine-generated content from human-generated content
is
valuable for the developer. The two require different mental processes
to handle. I have a much stronger guarantee that the abrt bug contains
facts, but I also know there's no point in asking for more information.
Reading a crash report is looking at structured data and divining
patterns. Reading a human's bug report is listening to a story. Left
brain, right brain.
Good point.
ABRT has become more slanted towards machine-generated bug reports
unintentionally, mostly because the user interface and report format
turned out this way: the implicit assumption that everything should be
reported (and reported without much effort) is present in many aspects,
e.g. the red "warning" sign for every unreported crash, green "you did
good thing" sign for reported ones.
The idea of an application only _assisting_ user to create human-made
bug reports and making it easy to append the underlying technical
information is still worth pursuing. It is only a matter of changing the
ABRT interface to guide users this way, and to separate this way from
semi-automatic crash reporting.
It aslo makes sense to allow sending mostly machine-generated, few click
"crash" reports to some new server/service. It should be possible to
combine both approaches in a single application with some UI design
thinking. We can change ABRT to encourage sending computer assisted,
mostly human written bug reports to Bugzilla, and to enable
semi-automatic crash reporting to some new server. Two ways of
reporting. Not trying to combine them together as it is done now.
Karel