rc040203 at freenet.de
Sat Nov 6 02:01:31 UTC 2010
On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, 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.
> Well, so what? So a bunch of bug reports got filed, didn't lead to any
> changes, and then got closed.
According to the figures you sent earlier this week, ca. 93% of all ABRT
reports can be expected to suffer this fate.
> I mean, I guess looked at from a certain
> angle it's 'inefficient',
OK, I understand you are wanting to play down the issues ABRT has.
> but I don't think we're hitting any particular
> resource constraints in terms of Bugzilla use at this point.
Why do you think are we discussing/arguing?
IMO, the primary underlaying problem we are disscussing here is
"ARBT draining away too many resources".
More information about the devel