On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, 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.
Well, so what? So a bunch of bug reports got filed, didn't lead to any
changes, and then got closed.
According to the figures you sent earlier this week,
ca. 93% of all ABRT
reports can be expected to suffer this fate.
I mean, I guess looked at from a certain
angle it's 'inefficient',
OK, I understand you are wanting to play down
the issues ABRT has.
but I don't think we're hitting any particular
resource constraints in terms of Bugzilla use at this point.
Why do you think are
IMO, the primary underlaying problem we are disscussing here is
"ARBT draining away too many resources".