On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 13:38, todd rme <toddrme2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Krammer <kevin.kram...@gmx.at> wrote: >> On Saturday, 2011-10-01, Joshua Blocher wrote: >>> I think we are acting like it all has to be done manually which is >>> simply not true. Why are we tackling bug triage as something that only >>> a human can do? >> >> Because it potentially requires interpretation of natural language text, >> understanding of relations between concepts and ideally the ability to >> combine >> those to reproduce the problem. > > Maybe at the very least it could be used to find likely duplicate > backtraces. Currently drkonqi asks that you submit a new bug report > if you aren't certain that your backtrace is identical to an existing > one (which most users would not be able to do). If it could compare > backtraces and identify likely matches hopefully this could cut down a > lot on the number of duplicate crash reports.
Oh but it does, and it puts the numbers of the possible duplicate at the end of the backtrace. IMHO those should be on top of the backtrace instead of being at the bottom, but even then, most users will just click submit without even caring to check. Currently bug reporting is far too easy as it doesn't request enough thinking from the reporter. Dr. Konqi can compare to a certain extend, but there are quite a few reports that seem duplicates because of identical lines at the start, but diverge further on in the CrashHandler. What I would love to see is Dr. Konqi prohibiting reports that don't have complete backtraces e.g. are not marked with 3 stars. Currently there are still far too many reports going through without proper backtraces because of missing debugging symbols. Regards, Myriam -- Protect your freedom and join the Fellowship of FSFE: http://www.fsfe.org Please don't send me proprietary file formats, use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300) >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
