Version: unspecified (using KDE 4.4.4) OS: Linux Amarok crashed and I clicked on a report that (per the Subject) looked like a duplicate: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=240416 I was asked to create a new bug report so I did, here: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244520 but in the initial report I was told they're completely different (so why did Dr Konqui bring the option of duplicates?) and I was told the Dr Konqui attachment wasn't searchable, which seems silly. Reproducible: Didn't try Steps to Reproduce: Find a bug. Suggest that one may be a duplicate but if it isn't nothing stops you Actual Results: The bug is reported as a duplicate and the backtrace is attached. Expected Results: Backtraces are compared and the likelyhood of a duplicate is rated, or those that have different backtraces are filtered out. Also, the backtrace should be searchable text (not attachments I guess)for the KDE and app developers. Thanks for KDE, I am just hoping to make this tool a bit more usable for everyone involved.
Those are different bugs/problems: - Text Attachments not being searchable is a Bugzilla limitation. In any case, for KDE SC 4.5, part of the backtrace is also pasted inline; so that part can be found by the standard search method; and the full backtrace is still attached as a file. (so, that bug is FIXED) - DrKonqi told you that it was a similar bug, because some functions mentioned in your backtrace (your Amarok crash) were found in bug 240416; however, due another bugzilla limitation, we can't determine if the functions are in the same order (that would help us to guarantee it is a real duplicate and not a false positive like in this case). A possible solution would be, for every report listed as "possible duplicate", DrKonqi could try to fully download it and compare the backtraces properly; so it could be able to determine if it is a real duplicate. However, that will cause a lot of CPU/Bandwidth usage for the Bugzilla server; so I don't know if it will worthy to implement. (considering that the cases of false positives are rather minimum) Regards Dario A. (former DrKonqi dev)
As mentioned, solving this comes at an unreasonable cost to bandwidth and processing power which in the end means reporting takes much longer in general. This seems like a bad trade.