On 11/25/2010 11:24 PM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
Furthermore, step to reproduce also is very important, and may be we
should enforce users fill it?
This doesn't seem a clever idea to me, because at least for me, many
abrt alerts originate from breakdowns without any obvious
26.11.2010 11:38, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/25/2010 11:24 PM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
Furthermore, step to reproduce also is very important, and may be we
should enforce users fill it?
This doesn't seem a clever idea to me, because at least for me, many
abrt alerts
04.11.2010 06:10, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Maybe it is time to discuss
26.11.2010 00:43, Brendan Jones пишет:
On 11/25/2010 11:38 PM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
I think abrt is mostly useful tool, but it should be more interactive to
our users. No, most problem from it (at my experience and by other
answers there) because we got many reports dead
On 11/26/2010 08:24 AM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
Furthermore, step to reproduce also is very important, and may be we
should enforce users fill it? For example put it in separate required
field and check it is not empty (or may be some minimal heuristic
against fill it like
mån 2010-11-22 klockan 18:51 +0100 skrev Björn Persson:
Henrik Nordström wrote:
* Slight adjustment of karma to provide choices Works for me, Problem
still present and New problems seen
* Works for me is a +1, and also adds the refereced bug as fixed by
the update if not already in the
fre 2010-11-05 klockan 12:53 + skrev Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
Reports came in Auto responce reply back to the reporter -- QA
verified try to duplicate bug -- Bug set to maintainer -- Bug stayed
like that until EOL
You forgot
Bug was actually fixed from upstream relase, but the
lör 2010-11-06 klockan 14:08 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
I have no problem to verify a bug when the maintainer is ready to fix
it. But it is pretty annoying to verify it within a small time window
regularly just to have it ignored till the next EOL date.
Understood. And the same issue is also on
fre 2010-11-05 klockan 21:37 +0100 skrev Michael Schwendt:
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.
Henrik Nordström wrote:
* Slight adjustment of karma to provide choices Works for me, Problem
still present and New problems seen
* Works for me is a +1, and also adds the refereced bug as fixed by
the update if not already in the list of fixed bugs.
* Problem still present is a -1 if the
2010/11/6 Till Maas
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:23:00PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
Why does everyone want to put more and more burden on maintainers and
arguing
about small things that users should do?
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and
not
On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user
On 11/08/2010 01:34 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:22:29PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
We can argue about this a lot (e.e. submitter can reopen bug whenever he
finds
the time to verify the bug).
The problem is, there is no proper way to track whether a bug has been
verified, because the result may also be,
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 04:17:59 +, Jóhann wrote:
On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a
On 11/06/2010 01:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:15:36 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote:
Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 - F13 - F14
over a period of N months in reply to the automated
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 04:17:59 +, Jóhann wrote:
On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and not
expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL warnings some users receive all of
a sudden? They may be able to pay
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and
not expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL warnings some users receive all of
a sudden? They may be able to pay
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and
not expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL warnings some users receive all of
a sudden? They may be able to
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:24PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and
not expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:23:00PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
Why does everyone want to put more and more burden on maintainers and arguing
about small things that users should do?
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and not
expect the user to verify
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:24PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs
and not expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:36:24 +0200, Alexander wrote:
Hmm, let's switch user with maintainer?
Have you noticed how many new tickets some maintainers receive all of a
sudden?
In general or because of the EOL script creating a flood? ;)
Who classifies whether an incoming bug report is
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:38:36 +0200, Alexander wrote:
Oh and I forgot to add this:
If you think it is discouraging for the user do get his bug autoclosed, why
do
you think it is not discouraging for the maintainer to ask questions and
noone
answers them?
Perhaps read my other replies
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:58:21PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want to
orphan my package?
Welcome to the world without gtk, openjdk, eclipse-platform, kdelibs
I think maybe it is meant more as You have 100 bugs, 80 are not
On 11/05/2010 07:47 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want to
orphan my package?
Welcome to the world without gtk, openjdk, eclipse-platform, kdelibs
I think maybe it is meant more
Frank Murphy said the following on 11/05/2010 12:47 AM Pacific Time:
On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want to
orphan my package?
Welcome to the world without gtk, openjdk, eclipse-platform, kdelibs
I
Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400:
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.
From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to
On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400:
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.
From what I have seen, the
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:38:35 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It asks the reporter
On 11/04/2010 06:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
packages.
That's a little harsh---I have been in
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
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 07:27 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Frank Murphy said the following on 11/05/2010 12:47 AM Pacific Time:
On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want
to
orphan my package?
Welcome to the
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 18:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It is inefficient, if some time later another user needs to report the
same issue only to get ignored, too. It is not encouraging our users to
spend time on reporting bugs and on replying to NEEDINFO or other
questions in the tickets.
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 13:48 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 11/04/2010 06:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
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
it?
Then why should the reporter take action in reply to the NEEDINFO
bugzapping request?
Something is terribly wrong
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 21:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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
it?
Then why should the reporter take action in reply to
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user base abuse ABRT in that they refuse to
fill in the empty fields. Blame the reporters not the
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:05:01 +0100, Jiri wrote:
- if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then
please write me an email how to improve it
Could you please add another hurdle that tries to stop users from not
filling in the empty fields about how to reproduce a
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:05:01 +0100, Jiri wrote:
- if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then
please write me an email how to improve it
Could you please add another hurdle that tries to stop users from not
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those component that a
maintainer has not responded
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:27:46 +0200, Alexander wrote:
I can't see why can't we just admit - This is our best feel free to join us
and help ?? (someone should find better wording)
Yeah. It isn't that obvious to our users (and potential contributors
among them) where help is needed, where help
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote:
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.
So,
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user base abuse ABRT in that they refuse to
fill
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
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those
On 11/06/2010 01:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user
On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I
guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people have experienced
crashes you haven't yet
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:15 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I
guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
whether you can fix it? Why is the
On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I
guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The question is
Am I using the time efficiently? OR
Are the these tools actually preventing me to be efficient during my
available time?
As a user wanting to report a bug, abrt is both.
On one hand it's a systematic way to
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:15 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I
guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report
On 11/04/2010 07:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really.
When it comes to efficiency, it is.
In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced efficiency of
bug-hunting by flooding
As far as I understand the process you might just recheck your bug
report against last official release and bump version in the
corresponding field if the bug is still reproducible.
Otherwise, no-one is interested to improve 2-3years old _desktop_ system.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Bert
On 04/11/10 04:23, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02
On 04/11/10 06:56, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
For a bug that I can reproduce, the time it takes for me to fix it
might be comparable to the time it takes me to report it upstream and
get it fixed there.
Maybe not something all users can do, write code?
Should not be a barrier to using Linux,
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 23:10:54 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com wrote:
I am pretty sure a subset of these closed bugs are mass-closing of
bugs when a maintainer updates the software. Sometimes, when you
forward the report upstream, they don't understand the output either,
and say it may
Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Bert wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It asks the
Hi,
some possitive news from me first:
We have a new backtrace parser which should be able to find the
duplicates much better (tested on every known dupes reported by ABRT so
far) so at least the number of dupes should lower once this out (we're
having some troubles with SELinux so it didn't
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:21:19PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
[Opt-out for ABRT-Reports]
How would you do that? A popup in ABRT that reads
Sorry, but the maintainer of this package
has decided to not accept any bug reports.
Nope.
App X crashes and then
RC == Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de writes:
RC In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced
RC efficiency of bug-hunting by flooding maintainers with low quality,
RC often unusable reports and risen the communication churn related to
RC BZs.
It's been discussed many times and
On 11/04/2010 03:38 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:21:19PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
[Opt-out for ABRT-Reports]
How would you do that? A popup in ABRT that reads
Sorry, but the maintainer of this package
has decided to not accept any
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
How would you do that? A popup in ABRT that reads
Sorry, but the maintainer of this package
has decided to not accept any bug reports.
I think this would be a *really* bad user experience.
If telling the truth about
On 04/11/10 14:46, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
snip
but when user
wants to report (or generate a backtrace) it will tell him something like:
ABRT can't report a bug in this application, because it's not able
to gather all required information. You can analyze the bug using ABRT,
but you
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Bert Desmet wrote:
hi!
This is something I got in my mail box today.
As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for
me?
cheers, Bert
the url of the blog of the
On 11/04/2010 01:21 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Bert wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 04:10:31PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If the maintainer is not responding to reports or not acting as the link
to upstream ( that if he's not upstream himself ) for the component he's
responsable for in Fedora I ask you this why are those components in
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 12:18 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:15:30AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
The question is Am I using the time efficiently? OR Are the these
tools actually preventing me to be efficient during my available time?
Wasn't there some way for a
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It asks the reporter
for NEEDINFO when in fact it ought to ask WTF has the
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 14:20 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 02:15 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
The question is
Am I using the time efficiently? OR
Are the these tools actually preventing me to be efficient during my
available time?
How would they? You
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 14:21 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 12:18 +0100 schrieb Sven Lankes:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:15:30AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
The question is Am I using the time efficiently? OR Are the these
tools actually preventing me to
On 11/04/2010 04:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 04:10:31PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If the maintainer is not responding to reports or not acting as the link
to upstream ( that if he's not upstream himself ) for the component he's
responsable for in Fedora I
On 07:41 Thu 04 Nov , Ralf Corsepius wrote:
snip...
As a maintainer, abrt to me primarily means wading through wakes of
hardly readable emails, mostly to scan them for useful information. I
many cases I ended up with closing BZ, because these emails did not
contain sufficient info.
On 04/11/10 17:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is the problem we have with java-1.6.0-openjdk, except it's magnified
by the fact that the user could be running *ANYTHING* on the JVM. So if
some native code in a Java application crashes the JVM, we get an abrt
bug report for it.
snip
On 17:54 Thu 04 Nov , Frank Murphy wrote:
On 04/11/10 17:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is the problem we have with java-1.6.0-openjdk, except it's magnified
by the fact that the user could be running *ANYTHING* on the JVM. So if
some native code in a Java application
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:51 +, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Please turn these off for this package until such a time as the default
abrt report is actually useful for some form of diagnosis, which means
it at least has an hs_err file and mandatory reproducer information.
It'd be best to
On 04/11/10 17:56, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
I just have.
Excellent.
And not for the first time.
Constantly evolving.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/04/2010 06:56 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 17:54 Thu 04 Nov , Frank Murphy wrote:
On 04/11/10 17:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is the problem we have with java-1.6.0-openjdk, except it's magnified
by the fact that the user could be running *ANYTHING* on the JVM. So
On 19:06 Thu 04 Nov , Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 11/04/2010 06:56 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 17:54 Thu 04 Nov , Frank Murphy wrote:
On 04/11/10 17:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is the problem we have with java-1.6.0-openjdk, except it's magnified
by the fact
On 11/04/2010 07:26 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 19:06 Thu 04 Nov , Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 11/04/2010 06:56 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 17:54 Thu 04 Nov , Frank Murphy wrote:
On 04/11/10 17:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is the problem we have with
Le jeudi 04 novembre 2010 à 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It
On 11/04/2010 01:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
My question would be 'why'? There seems to be an assumption that an open
bug report you can't fix is a serious problem; of course in a sense it
is, but then, it's not as if, if we remove or otherwise change abrt,
software is going to magically
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:51 +, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 07:41 Thu 04 Nov , Ralf Corsepius wrote:
snip...
As a maintainer, abrt to me primarily means wading through wakes of
hardly readable emails, mostly to scan them for useful information. I
many cases I ended up with
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:44 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
From a practical point of view, as a bug reporter, when I get mass
notifications to update scores of bugs that were opened years ago, and
that the people owning the component never bothered to respond on (even
to confirm they were
* Przemek Klosowski [04/11/2010 21:51] :
(why do I need to know about new CC:s on the bug list)
FWIW, this can be configured:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/04/2010 03:22 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Przemek Klosowski [04/11/2010 21:51] :
(why do I need to know about new CC:s on the bug list)
FWIW, this can be configured:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Emmanuel
But probably should be configured not to send CC
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
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
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
On 11/04/2010 07:47 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
If someone else cares and retests, they ideally
would be able to reopen it, but Bugzilla currently doesn't allow that
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall we changed that
deliberately.
( should be a discussion about this in this
On 11/04/2010 11:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 11:57:58 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Orcan Ogetbil [04/11/2010 09:35] :
The extreme inefficiency comes from the bugs that I can't reproduce,
the upstream can't reproduce, and the user isn't responding. And this
happens *a lot*. Most of the time, they don't even put
On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
packages.
Since this has turned into general pony
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:58:21PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
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
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
So to sum it up, the fastest solution I can provide for you is to blacklist
your packages and/or ask for at least some text in steps to reproduce.
That would be an excellent start. Thank you for spending your time on this.
Orcan
--
devel
hi!
This is something I got in my mail box today.
As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for me?
cheers, Bert
the url of the blog of the guy: http://www.krisbuytaert.be/blog/
== the mail ==
Dear Fedoracommunity,
Over the course of the day I recieved 22^3 mails
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
