bugzilla bugzappers?

Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora at gmail.com
Thu Nov 4 22:22:45 UTC 2010

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> 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.
>> Orcan
> 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.

Sure, here are the things that I need.

1- For my packages, I don't want any ABRT bug reports without the
"Steps to reproduce" information. ABRT should tell the user the field
is missing and it won't send a bug report until the user fills it.
Some maintainers say they don't need the  "Steps to reproduce", but I
need it.

2-  ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an
outstanding "needinfo?" flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he
shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my

3- Ability to turn off ABRT for certain packages. Whenever I provide
an application package with no nonstandard patches and there is a
crash, it is most definitely not my fault. The user should be
instructed to take the backtrace upstream to the URL of the package
and report it in their bug tracker/mailing list. Even better, ABRT can
file the bug directly upstream. I am willing to provide the
information of upstream bug trackers/mailing lists for all of my

Thanks for your understanding,

More information about the devel mailing list