ons 2010-12-08 klockan 11:41 + skrev Peter Robinson:
It was my understanding that abrt was suppose to block on backtraces
without debuginfo but I still regularly get bugs with little or no
decent info.
True. I accidently filed a such abrt report some time ago. I assumed it
would fetch the
Matt Domsch wrote:
Last built on Fedora 12 (52):
Huh?
The right metric is not when was this last built but when was this last
BUILDABLE. We don't randomly rebuild stuff which doesn't need to be
rebuilt.
E.g.:
celestia-1.5.1-2.fc12 [u'631077 NEW'] (build/make) steve,mmahut
(the first one on
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Have you considered training up some bugzappers to help triage your
components? They could at least work on de-duping abrt reports.
Uh, I've pretty much given up on handling ABRT reports entirely. Even if
they were deduped, there are so many different Gnash crashes that's
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the
package sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else
might have the policy URL handy).
Only 3 months.
And if the package doesn't build, the maintainer is probably not going to
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 01:44:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
Last built on Fedora 12 (52):
Huh?
The right metric is not when was this last built but when was this last
BUILDABLE. We don't randomly rebuild stuff which doesn't need to be
rebuilt.
E.g.:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
by
PR == Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com writes:
PR My understanding was that if it was blocked it had to go through
PR review again.
Depends on how long:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers
Re-review required for older packages
If a package was last
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
random bot-driven bugs.
every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
person. They have to be sufficiently narked about the app crashing (and
it
On 12/08/2010 09:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for
FTBFS,
IMO, there can't be any doubt about FTBFS's to be must fixes and them
to release blockers for packages being
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:12 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
they
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
random bot-driven bugs.
every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 11:37 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
snip
GNOME's dup finder:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/bugzilla-newer/tree/dupfinder
The README is probably outdated, as per:
http://live.gnome.org/BugzillaUpgrade/UpgradeStatus#Simple-dup-finder
Filed as:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
random bot-driven bugs.
every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
person.
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:01:39PM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
random bot-driven bugs.
every
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:01:39 +,
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
It's a file'n'dump bug. There's no one that actually looked at the bugs
to try and analyse them, nobody to offer a reminder in the bugs (they
were filed and left untouched).
I went through a number of FTBFS
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:29 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
My goal isn't to make life difficult for everyone. My goal is to keep
the distribution in a form where it can actually build from the open
source we provide.
Thanks Matt. What you're doing is vitally important for the
distribution, since
Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to
build it
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
mingw32-libglademm24-2.6.7-8.fc12 [u'631374 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
mingw32-pangomm-2.26.0-1.fc12 [u'631208 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
mingw32-plotmm-0.1.2-4.fc12 [u'631082 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:10:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. ??The
lists may be broken down by when they
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com wrote:
Note that I am not advocating keeping these packages unfixed. I wanted
to point out that things might turn ugly and might even trigger an
avalanche when you remove the FTBFS packages from the repo and then
the packages
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier.
You better not.
The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
haven't had much maintainer
On 12/6/2010 23:01, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:13:49PM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 12/6/2010 23:01, Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did
Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
On 12/07/2010 06:41 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
I trust module-init-tools will get resolved with an impending upstream
release. Not like that can go unfixed forever. :-)
Should be fixed before Wednesday (tomorrow). I have some fixes for
compressed modules too. Will let you know when
32 matches
Mail list logo
