On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 11/04/2010 10:49 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> 2010/11/4 Orcan Ogetbil :
>>> 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.
>> No need to discuss - it's really useful. I recently closed several
>> issues with the aid of stacktaces sent by ABRT.
> I am very happy that the current scheme works well for you. You think
> that we should ignore the outstanding 93% of the ABRT bug reports, and
> the 6000 untouched bugs that will be closed in a month. If we don't do
> anything that 6000 will multiply at the end of the F-13 cycle.
> The current scheme did not fit the majority of maintainers.This is
> obvious. The numbers just prove it. Moreover, it drives users away
> from reporting bugs and drives at least 1 maintainer away from
> maintaining certain packages.
> Instead of saying "no need to discuss, it works for me", let us try to
> improve this process. Going in circular arguments will not help us.
Obviously we *need* to discuss, but just complaining won't help anything
- if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then
please write me an email how to improve it (which data you'd like to see
for specific packages) and we can sure do something about that and
disable it in a meanwhile to relieve you from those useless bug reports.
Sure, here are the things that I need.
1- For my packages, I don't want any ABRT bug reports without the
"Steps to reproduce" information. ABRT should tell the user the field
is missing and it won't send a bug report until the user fills it.
Some maintainers say they don't need the "Steps to reproduce", but I
2- ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an
outstanding "needinfo?" flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he
shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my
3- Ability to turn off ABRT for certain packages. Whenever I provide
an application package with no nonstandard patches and there is a
crash, it is most definitely not my fault. The user should be
instructed to take the backtrace upstream to the URL of the package
and report it in their bug tracker/mailing list. Even better, ABRT can
file the bug directly upstream. I am willing to provide the
information of upstream bug trackers/mailing lists for all of my
Thanks for your understanding,