On Sunday 02 October 2011 13:38:56 todd rme 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. The problem here is that DrKonqui asks. A user cannot interpret a backtrace and I cannot remember any case during the last year where DrKonqui found possible duplicates and the real one was not under them.
DrKonqui should not allow to submit the backtrace if it finds possible duplicates. Cheers Martin > > -Todd > > >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe > >> <<
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
