bugzilla bugzappers?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 04 novembre 2010 à 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> > > So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
> > > improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
> > 
> > Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It asks the reporter
> > for NEEDINFO when in fact it ought to ask WTF has the packager not
> > responded since Fedora 12?
> 
> you're looking at it through a 'moral' framework when the important
> thing is the 'practical' framework. :) The practical point is that F12
> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...UNLESS it's
> still present in later releases. It's the reporter who is most likely to
> be able to say whether it is, therefore, we ask the user to check and
> update the bug, not the maintainer.

>From a practical point of view, as a bug reporter, when I get mass
notifications to update scores of bugs that were opened years ago, and
that the people owning the component never bothered to respond on (even
to confirm they were alive), I just /dev/null the result and never look
at it again.

Sometimes people ask me why I let bugs get autoclosed when they hit the
same problems months later, but really, I don't see the point of
spending hours to re-test reports, when no one could spend minutes to
ask for (human) confirmation.

And that includes abrt reports. Any abrt report on testing of rawhide is
a major PITA to assemble (minimum half an hour for a typical gui app to
hunt down all the missing debuginfos manually in koji, since the
debuginfo mirrors never seem to be in sync with the package depos
themselves, not counting when abrt wants me to download the gigs of
kernel debuginfo of the day), so if when people say here abrt is "too
easy" and abrt reporters "do not make efforts" I cant only be ROTFL (or
crying, more accurately) 

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot