ABRT opt-out (was Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting)

[Jiri Moskovcak]

On 12/09/2010 10:55 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 10:38 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>> 18:53:17<ajax>   i've heard a modest amount of complaints that abrt is doing more harm than good
>>> 18:53:53<ajax>   along multiple axes, but in particular it's simply too much data for apps like firefox and evo for maintainers to respond to
>>> 18:54:22<ajax>   i don't have any particular suggestions for this (well, i do, but i'll be politic), but it's something i'd like to see discussed from the distro planning POV
>>> 18:54:44<nirik>   yeah, came up on the list recently again as well.
>>> 18:55:11<vinzv>   hi
>>> 18:56:15<ajax>   is this something people want to talk about here next week, or should it be more of a fedora-devel issue
>>> 18:56:38<nirik>   I did note that totem and rhythumbox (I can't spell that to save my life) have the vast majority of bastens bugs.
>>> 18:57:23<nirik>   I wonder if we could get abrt to have a maintainer opt out thing that would be easy to change by maintainers?
>>> 18:57:35<nirik>   right now it's blacklist is in the package itself.
>>> 18:58:18<nirik>   or if we could have them file in another place. ;(
>
> sure we can, but I'm bit afraid that a lot of maintainers would disable
> it even without a good reason, so there should be a policy for that
>
> and we're working on feature
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RetraceServer which should fix
> the problems with uncomplete backtraces, so at least this complaint
> won't apply anymore ...
>>
>> ABRT already looks up for the duplicate backtraces. Wouldn't it be the
>> easiest way to add some special keyword such as "abrtcatchall" or
>> something and if ABRT found an non-CLOSED bug with this keyword it would
>> append a new backtrace to the bug instead of opening a new one. This
>> should be fairly simple to implement. Of course ABRT would not append a
>> duplicate backtrace that is already added to the bug.
>>
>
> So it would store all bt for one component into one bug? This feels like
> "raping" bugzilla, which is not ready to be used with tool like ABRT,
> but we can do it as a temporary solution...
>
> J.

Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make 
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once 
(or some other threshold) :)