assigning of abrt crashes

Thomas Spura tomspur at fedoraproject.org
Tue Aug 17 10:06:35 UTC 2010


On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:01:36 -0400
Colin Walters wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to propose a general rule that ABRT crash logs should remain
> "assigned" to the actual application, unless an actual investigation
> has been done and there's a "reasonable" certainty the flaw is in the
> library code in which it happened to crash.

Who should do that investigation, when the maintainer of the actual
application is unable to do so? A bug tracker with
FE-NEEDSHELPWITHBACKTRACE would help here. Maybe FES [1] would like to
help here in that case.

> Rationale: Applications are more likely to be buggy (I'm just
> asserting this, but it seems obvious), and just because a crash
> happened inside the library, particularly when C/C++ is involved,
> means nothing; the flaw could still be in the application.  If we
> reassign them, it's harder to make all crashes for an application
> visible.
> 
> I'm fine with being added to a CC list, but reassigning is more of a
> mess.

Simply CC'ing would always work, because how can I be sure, that
someone with more experience with backtraces will try to track this
down, if I can't?


	Thomas

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Services


More information about the devel mailing list