On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, David Timms wrote:
On 17/07/10 08:12, Christoph Wickert wrote:
...
It refers to bugs and thus *covers* all bugs. You should first try to
fix it yourself and upstream the fix if it's not Fedora specific. If you
cannot fix the problem yourself, ask upstream for help.
Many
On 07/12/2010 05:38 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
If you kill all of them you'd get rid of the ones you suggested for a
legit AutoQA tests.
Yes I would. And I'm okay with that. Since there been no work done to
Am Dienstag, den 13.07.2010, 21:34 -0700 schrieb Matt McCutchen:
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 13:22 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
It is indeed documented in the wiki: If there are bugs which you aren't
capable of fixing yourself because they deal with intricacies of the
source code which you
At present the script opens over 300 windows, which have to be closed
manually. I coudn't think of an automatic way of closing them; how does
AutoQA going to deal with the problem of testing GUI apps?
I think wmctrl would help here.
Rich
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 09:55 +1000, David Timms wrote:
Would it it be useful for abrt to automatically submit bugs to such a
thing ?
This wouldn't pollute either fedora's or upstream bug systems, yet it
would capture vital info (backtrace) that would otherwise go missing.
With some marketing,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
[...]
Actually, I think WONTFIX is a bad choice of resolution here, UPSTREAM or,
in the specific case of the reporter refusing to file an upstream bug,
INSUFFICIENT_DATA is IMHO a better choice.
... or FEDORA_MAINTAINER_PATCH_ROBOT_TOO_BUSY.
-
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 12:47 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
That being said. I really really think that its only appropriate for
someone who has talked specifically to the maintainers of a package to
make that sort of wontfix closure judgement and to do the closure. I
do not think its best
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 13:22 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 11.07.2010, 06:14 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
I don't know if Fedora has an official stance documented somewhere, but
I personally would support Eric's viewpoint. A Fedora maintainer should
Christoph Wickert wrote:
Ask yourself: What do we gain, if we gather all these backtraces in
bugzilla and then close them WONTFIX? It's more work for the users, the
maintainers and the bugzappers, but we gain nothing. Seems like a bad
deal,
… and thus ABRT needs to learn to report those bugs
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Assuming it's a detailed/complete backtrace accompanied with steps
on how to reproduce something, well, I would think the same.
Unfortunately, users still dump ABRT backtraces into Fedora bugzilla
without adding a single comment and without replying to questions.
Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
That would be nice, but AFAIK you can't Cc: people who are not
registered on the bug tracker.
Right, most bug trackers (at least when weighted by the number of projects
using them) don't allow CCing unregistered e-mail addresses. This is the
main problem with
Till Maas wrote:
The packager can also create a new testing package for the reporter to
test, e.g. to verify that the bug is not yet fixed in a newer upstream
release that is not in Fedora.
That's why I try to CC myself on the upstream bugs which are filed by our
reporters. But of course, if
Christoph Wickert wrote:
Bingo! The very same could be said for the maintainer. :P
The difference between the bug reporter and the package maintainer is:
* The maintainer has (literally!) hundreds of ABRT crash reports for his
package to deal with, the reporter at most a handful.
It is just
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Christoph Wickert wrote:
Bingo! The very same could be said for the maintainer. :P
The difference between the bug reporter and the package maintainer is:
* The maintainer has (literally!) hundreds of ABRT crash
On 07/12/2010 09:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Christoph Wickert wrote:
Ask yourself: What do we gain, if we gather all these backtraces in
bugzilla and then close them WONTFIX? It's more work for the users, the
maintainers and the bugzappers, but we gain nothing. Seems like a bad
deal,
… and
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
... many upstreams ignore robots. Other distros have gone through this
learning curve many years ago (E.g. Debian, ca. a decade ago).
Then they'll also ignore a packager playing robot. That's exactly why the
upstream bugs need to be filed by the actual reporter. At least
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
... many upstreams ignore robots. Other distros have gone through this
learning curve many years ago (E.g. Debian, ca. a decade ago).
Then they'll also ignore a packager playing robot. That's exactly why the
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 12:47 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Carl Gaudreault
carl.gaudrea...@gmail.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464#c29
I appreciate the effort to be more explicit in your reasoning by
adding an additional comment in
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 09:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Carl, I'm not sure if you've been doing this wearing a Bugzappers hat,
but if so, it is *not* currently part of Bugzappers policy for
Bugzappers to make this kind of call on behalf of the package
maintainers, as Jeff says. I appreciate
On 07/11/2010 09:17 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The signal-to-noise ratio in Bugzilla has definitely dropped since
ABRT is introduced.
Sure, because the number of deliberate non-ABRT bug reports probably
stayed the same, and there is a ton of automatic entries. If they are
minimal, in
On 07/11/2010 05:23 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
The only _noise_ I've seen was abrt allowing someone to report crashes
against included example matplotlib scripts (scripts which require
non-default matplotlib userspace configurations to work), and the abrt
developers have solved that problem to
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
if the reporter refuses to
do that, it's only pure laziness.
Maybe, but that's no justification to close the Fedora bug.
Sure it is. If the reporter is too lazy to do even very simple tasks to get
his/her bug fixed, why should I work for
On 07/12/2010 04:15 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
It doesn't look good when the application-provided examples crash. I see
that it's a complex issue between the upstream and packagers, but I
think the policy
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
Every file outside of this 'core examples' set could print the message
This example's functionality may depend on the specific configuration
of matplotlib and other packages. Even better, could it be in some
On 07/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
Every file outside of this 'core examples' set could print the message
This example's functionality may depend on the specific configuration
of matplotlib and
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
If you kill all of them you'd get rid of the ones you suggested for a
legit AutoQA tests.
Yes I would. And I'm okay with that. Since there been no work done to
identify any scripts yet there's no real work
On 11/07/10 05:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Providing a patch is actually hard. Reporting a bug in the upstream bug
tracker is just a matter of filling out the form, if the reporter refuses to
do that, it's only pure laziness.
Kevin Kofler
It could be fear.
Do these people (upstream)
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Upstream wants to talk to somebody who's actually experiencing the problem,
not to a forwarding monkey.
Really? I would have thought upstream would be grateful for any
reports, preferring that to silence. If the actual
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:02:30 +0100, Camilo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Upstream wants to talk to somebody who's actually experiencing the problem,
not to a forwarding monkey.
It depends on the project. Some projects do not want to receive reports
about
Am Sonntag, den 11.07.2010, 06:14 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
I don't know if Fedora has an official stance documented somewhere, but
I personally would support Eric's viewpoint. A Fedora maintainer should
be responsible for all the bugs in the package, even if that
Am Sonntag, den 11.07.2010, 06:13 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
the bug. Would you mark a bug INSUFFICIENT_DATA because the
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/07/10 05:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Providing a patch is actually hard. Reporting a bug in the upstream bug
tracker is just a matter of filling out the form, if the reporter refuses to
do that, it's only pure
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:02:30 +0100, Camilo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Upstream wants to talk to somebody who's actually experiencing the problem,
not to a forwarding monkey.
It
On 07/11/2010 03:17 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The signal-to-noise ratio in Bugzilla has definitely dropped since
ABRT is introduced. Newer versions do require some text to be inserted
before it will submit the bug report, but perhaps it has to be
modified further to require a minimum
2010/7/11 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
the bug. Would you mark a bug INSUFFICIENT_DATA because the reporter
didn't
2010/7/11 Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com:
2010/7/11 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
the bug. Would you mark a bug
W dniu 09.07.2010 23:27, Andreas Tunek pisze:
I get Empathy crashes all the time, duplicates of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464, but this bug is in
WONTFIX status. Anyone know why?
Actually according to my abrt this did not occur for more than a month
(F-13 kept up-to-date),
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 06:13 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
the bug. Would you mark a bug INSUFFICIENT_DATA because the reporter
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 13:29 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
The difference between the bug reporter and the package maintainer is:
* The maintainer already knows the upstream bugtracker, the user
not necessarily. [...]
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 06:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 15:52 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
W dniu 09.07.2010 23:27, Andreas Tunek pisze:
I get Empathy crashes all the time, duplicates of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464, but this bug is in
WONTFIX status. Anyone know why?
Actually according to my abrt
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 07/11/2010 03:17 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The signal-to-noise ratio in Bugzilla has definitely dropped since
ABRT is introduced. Newer versions do require some text to be inserted
before it will
Am Sonntag, den 11.07.2010, 10:16 -0400 schrieb Matt McCutchen:
Most of these practical hassles would be eliminated by proper
integration between the downstream and upstream bug trackers to allow
bugs to be forwarded in one step and upstream to request additional info
directly from the
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 22:15 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 11.07.2010, 10:16 -0400 schrieb Matt McCutchen:
Most of these practical hassles would be eliminated by proper
integration between the downstream and upstream bug trackers to allow
bugs to be forwarded in one step
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
The signal-to-noise ratio in Bugzilla has definitely dropped since
ABRT is introduced. Newer versions do require some text to be inserted
before it will submit the bug report, but perhaps it has to be
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was requested in the bug
report. The reporters outright refused to report the bugs upstream, thus
it's
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I certainly leave bugs in an open state until I or one of my
co-maintainers makes a judgement call which mandates a wontfix
resolution. This looks like a real issue..a tough one to track
down..but still potentially fixable. Neither cantfix nor wontfix seem
to apply... nor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2010 01:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Carl Gaudreault
carl.gaudrea...@gmail.com wrote:
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across
multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
-jef
I gave the reason why i closed it.
Are you saying that you
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Carl Gaudreault
carl.gaudrea...@gmail.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464#c29
I appreciate the effort to be more explicit in your reasoning by
adding an additional comment in response to this out-of-ticket
dicussion.
That being said. I
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:40 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
INSUFFICIENT_DATA, the standard resolution for unanswered needinfo requests,
is the best resolution to use if the reporter refuses to file the bug
upstream. (The data missing is a link to a properly filed upstream bug
report.)
If
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 14:35 -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
On 07/10/2010 01:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was requested in the bug
report. The reporters outright refused to report the bugs upstream, thus
it's normal to close them.
I'm
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
the bug. Would you mark a bug INSUFFICIENT_DATA because the reporter
didn't provide a patch?
Providing a patch is actually
Matt McCutchen wrote:
I don't know if Fedora has an official stance documented somewhere, but
I personally would support Eric's viewpoint. A Fedora maintainer should
be responsible for all the bugs in the package, even if that just means
forwarding them upstream. Reporters are encouraged to
On 2010/07/11 06:13 (GMT+0200) Kevin Kofler composed:
Reporting a bug in the upstream bug
tracker is just a matter of filling out the form, if the reporter refuses to
do that, it's only pure laziness.
To one who has no bug tracker account upstream, it's not just a matter of
filling out the
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I get Empathy crashes all the time, duplicates of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464, but this bug is in
WONTFIX status. Anyone know why?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 23:27 +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
I get Empathy crashes all the time, duplicates of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464, but this bug is in
WONTFIX status. Anyone know why?
Look at the history. Carl G. marked it WONTFIX on 2010-06-28 without an
explanatory
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 23:27 +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
I get Empathy crashes all the time, duplicates of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464, but this bug is in
WONTFIX status. Anyone know why?
Look
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
-jef
I gave the reason why i closed it.
Also, RHBZ number you are referring to?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Carl Gaudreault
carl.gaudrea...@gmail.com wrote:
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm. Not cool.
-jef
I gave the reason why i closed it.
Are you saying that you comment in 27 requesting
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:00 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Carl Gaudreault
carl.gaudrea...@gmail.com wrote:
So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
-jef
I gave the reason why i
61 matches
Mail list logo
