On 02/19/2013 10:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 19/02/13 10:38 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 11:43 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:13:27AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > I have a script that automates some of the workload of
>> reassigning the
>> > component back to where the bug really is, but it currently requires
>> > some manual intervention:
>> > http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/dmalcolm/public_git/triage.git
>> > so inevitably I don't run it on every bug that comes in every
>> day, and
>> > so I gradually get behind.
>> That looks useful. It's made of special-cases of course for your
>> use-case, but I think we can come up with some similar rules for common
>> things we see reported against the kernel.
> I've tried to hide the bulk of the python-specificness within rules.py
> (though there are some helper methods in backtrace.py for extracting
> python-level backtraces from a C-level backtrace).
> So if you want to hack this into a tool for use on kernel bugs, go for
...and please integrate with abrt! Let's have it all working together :)
- I am all for it, the abrt server is exactly the place where these kind
of things should be
Didn't there used to be a kernel.org
trace server-y thing before
got hacked? Has that ever come back up again? I recall abrt
was sending kernel traces there instead of to BZ at the time.
- AFAIK the current state of the oops.org
is that it works, abrt
forwards the reports there, but it has no UI