Well I don't think it is worthwhile chasing the abrt bugs through bugzilla,
regardless of which bugzilla it uses. The true value of abrt is the data
that is collected and can be viewed through:
Because by looking at the 'problems' tab you will quite quickly see which crashers
a lot of your users and are the ones making the distro seem unstable.
Despite its shortcomings it is worthwhile to note that abrt catches between 5000 and 10
a day, even going up to almost 24 000 one day for f20. So I think it does provide enough
data to help us
improve our quality. I know a lot of developers (and managers) are checking the retrace
data regularly and use it
to prioritize which bugs are looked at first.
So instead of looking into dropping it we should if needed instead try to see if we can
help the ABRT team improve it further.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Barnes" <mbarnes(a)redhat.com>
To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop"
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:22:12 PM
Subject: Re: ABRT?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 11:38 -0400, Christian Schaller wrote:
> Well as annoying abrt can be I think nothing ruins the user experience
> more than crashers, so if abrt helps us fix more crashers/the most
> important crashers, I think that improvement in user experience
> probably outweighs the irritation of abrt.
My biggest problem with ABRT as a developer is it reports crashers to
the wrong Bugzilla.
I and I think many other GNOME developers would strongly prefer all bug
reports go directly upstream, instead of to Fedora's Bugzilla where they
then have to be manually moved upstream (or just left to rot).
Having bugs for a given component distributed across multiple bug
trackers just creates more work for upstream developers who double as
I requested long ago that package maintainers should be able to specify
where ABRT sends crash reports for their own packages. I even suggested
a possible mechanism for this, but I don't think it ever went anywhere.
desktop mailing list