jmoskovc at redhat.com
Thu Nov 4 22:05:01 UTC 2010
On 11/04/2010 10:49 PM, 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.
> The current scheme did not fit the majority of maintainers.This is
> obvious. The numbers just prove it. Moreover, it drives users away
> from reporting bugs and drives at least 1 maintainer away from
> maintaining certain packages.
> Instead of saying "no need to discuss, it works for me", let us try to
> improve this process. Going in circular arguments will not help us.
Obviously we *need* to discuss, but just complaining won't help anything
- if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then
please write me an email how to improve it (which data you'd like to see
for specific packages) and we can sure do something about that and
disable it in a meanwhile to relieve you from those useless bug reports.
More information about the devel