On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, 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. :)
I am pretty sure a subset of these closed bugs are "mass-closing" of
bugs when a maintainer updates the software. Sometimes, when you
forward the report upstream, they don't understand the output either,
and say "it may be fixed, just update and try". You update the
software, put it to testing, and ask the user if it is fixed for him.
The user doesn't respond as usual. Then you mark it as fixed without
really knowing what's going on. Then you have such statistics. YAY!
I think abrt is mostly useful tool, but it should be more interactive to
our users. No, most problem from it (at my experience and by other
answers there) because we got many reports dead at begining. Users
encountered fill bug report, but if it is new user, it in 90% cases even
do not answer on question how it may be reproduced.
I assume it is main bad there.
Can we add functionality track user bugreports and allow answer on
requests (as minimum with 'needinfo' state) directly from abrt??
I think it may serious increase percentage of usefull bug reports from abrt.