mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Nov 5 20:37:54 UTC 2010
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:30:41 -0700, Adam wrote:
> If the bug hasn't had any attention for the last
> year and a half it's not particularly likely to magically get it now, is
Then why should the reporter take action in reply to the NEEDINFO
Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 -> F13 -> F14
over a period of N months in reply to the automated NEEDINFO requests and
still doesn't get any response other than another automated one after
six more months.
> John always posts the schedule for housekeeping tasks to test list (I
> think possibly devel list too, I forget) and asks for feedback. He never
> seems to get any.
Look in the archives. It's not the first time I've criticized what this
bugzapping script does. It has stopped me from filing lots of issues,
both with regard to packaging bugs as well as other problems, because
I simply cannot handle the flood of NEEDINFO requests. If I remember
correctly, this predates your involvement in Fedora. (And John comes
up with so much stuff, hardly anyone will handle it anyway.)
> If the bug's not reproducible, how is anyone going to fix it?
> Or know that it's been fixed?
Praise ABRT! In many cases, complete backtraces in conjunction with the
source code reveal programming errors - sometimes embarassing ones.
Not always, but if nobody skims over the problem reports, nobody can tell
whether a reported bug is interesting or not.
> > I'd like to see the list of Fedora packages, which are under-maintained
> > and actually suffer from issues, which are not fixed by the Fedora Project
> > and are not fixed in the upstream code base either (because a packager
> > doesn't even forward problem reports to upstream trackers or because
> > upstream development doesn't get rid of defects "magically" with lots of
> > code rewrites).
> And I'd like a gold-plated pony. If you'd like to see the list, why not
> create it? I don't think anyone else has it lying around just ready to
> produce on demand.
> (Unless there was meant to be a second part to this sentence and you got
> lost somewhere in the middle :>)
The sentence is complete. Probably writing it was wasted time, because
apparently *you* are not interested in feedback or in ideas, which might
be more helpful than hiding bugs under the carpet.
More information about the devel