On 02/08/2010 06:11 PM, Karel Klic wrote:
> On 02/08/2010 02:22 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2010, 22:26 +0100 schrieb Karel Klic:
>> IMO all lists should be sorted by package owner. I own ~ 120 packages
>> and it is a quite lot of work to search all these packages in your
Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2010, 14:16 +0100 schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
> - ABRT uses the code from Dr.Konqui to rate the backtrace and doesn't
> allow user to send it if the rate is bellow 3 (the scale is 0-4), but
> the bug in GUI let user to send even the bad BT.
I think this bug should be fixed now
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:42 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:15:39AM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> > What strikes me as very puzzling is why abrt has this humongous dialog
> > instead of leading the user step-by-step through this... I know you just
> > changed the UI in a s
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:15:39AM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> What strikes me as very puzzling is why abrt has this humongous dialog
> instead of leading the user step-by-step through this... I know you just
> changed the UI in a stable release. But doing it twice is twice fun ;-),
> so why n
On 02/12/2010 03:15 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
>>> IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
>>> to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
>
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> but then user might well enter description consisting of
> "I dont care" (or worse).
>
> --
> vda
>
>
That would ease my conscience when I closed the bug report :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> to the "needinfo" request).
You can do it even sooner. If backtrace is unusable and there is no
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:58:03AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> You need to add this to the respective analyzer's configs:
>
> InformAllUsers = yes
>
> CCpp.conf - C/C++ xrashes analyzer
> Python.conf - python analyzer
> Kerneloops.conf - kerneloops (already has this enabled)
>
> But this app
On 02/10/2010 10:42 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:23:48AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
>> I think I did catch it (if ABRT was running), but ordinary users can't
>> see other user's crashes (the command from this bz has to be run under
>> root) unless root doesn't change this b
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:23:48AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> I think I did catch it (if ABRT was running), but ordinary users can't
> see other user's crashes (the command from this bz has to be run under
> root) unless root doesn't change this behaviour in abrt's config file.
What do I ha
On 02/10/2010 01:12 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:22:27PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> For yum related python backtrace bugs, it worked pretty well here and
>> made bug reporting a lot easier. So maybe it should only be activated
>> for cases where additional debuginfo is not ne
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:22:27PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> For yum related python backtrace bugs, it worked pretty well here and
> made bug reporting a lot easier. So maybe it should only be activated
> for cases where additional debuginfo is not needed.
This time it did not catch the bug:
http
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 09:42 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 02/09/2010 04:17 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:16 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> >
> >> because I guess they would just sit there until bugzapping period.
> >
>
> > or they get killed due to the release for
> >
On 02/09/2010 04:17 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:16 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
>> because I guess they would just sit there until bugzapping period.
>
> or they get killed due to the release for
> which they were filed going EOL.
That's what I meant :)
J.
--
devel m
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 22:26 +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> So I'd like to close over 600 bugs in Bugzilla using scripts. Is there
> some Fedora policy regulating this?
It would be best to contact the maintainer of RH Bugzilla, Dave
Lawrence; he'll be able to advise you how to proceed.
--
Adam Willi
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:16 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> because I guess they would just sit there until bugzapping period.
There's no 'bugzapping period', exactly. BugZappers work all the time,
but only on a small subset of all Fedora packages, we simply do not have
the manpower to cover all
Jiri Moskovcak writes:
> Such log would be nice, but it might take some time (even days) before
> the app crashes again and I can imagine that could generate quite a
> large log :-/ Maybe if it would store just last few syscalls...
Sure, some circular logging, the last few thousand syscalls, no
On 02/08/2010 02:22 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2010, 22:26 +0100 schrieb Karel Klic:
>> I
>> placed the list of found bugs to the Fedora wiki [2]. IMHO only bugs
>> with 2 comments should be closed, because 2 comments mean that the
>> package maintainer did not touch the b
On 02/08/2010 05:36 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Michael Schwendt writes:
I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
properly.
Yeah, some of us have pointed out that before.
I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
happy if users contrib
Michael Schwendt writes:
>> I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
>> properly.
>
> Yeah, some of us have pointed out that before.
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments
On 02/08/2010 05:05 PM, Jerry James wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
- it actually does work, but it's bug detection/analyse is too general for
some apps, this is something we know about and it's not in our powers to fix
(it's not even considered a bug). This is actu
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> - it actually does work, but it's bug detection/analyse is too general for
> some apps, this is something we know about and it's not in our powers to fix
> (it's not even considered a bug). This is actually the reason why is ABRT
> extendible
On 02/07/2010 07:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Secondly, the package maintainer should be informed about what is broken
>> with the chosen/packaged software release. Certainly you don't ask for
>> upstream to filter out *all* reports from all distributions, to return
>> di
On 02/07/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:20:04 +0100, Stefan wrote:
>
>> On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> To end-users, it's irrelevant "who is supposed to fix something". Their
>>> complaints are against the product call Fedora and thu
Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2010, 22:26 +0100 schrieb Karel Klic:
> The script to find backtraces without debuginfo has been written[1].
Thanks a lot for your work and for your latest mail as well!
> I
> placed the list of found bugs to the Fedora wiki [2]. IMHO only bugs
> with 2 comments should b
Karel Klic wrote:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> For me as the maintainer it is a lot of work to reply to all these
>> useless reports and for our users it's just frustrating if all their
>> reports get closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA.
>
> I am now going to write a script which detects all the backtraces
>
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> As a last resort, software could get retired and removed from "The
> Product".
I'm not sure not shipping something at all is better for the user than
shipping it with bugs, even if they never get fixed. Often even a buggy
software is better than nothing.
Kevin
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Secondly, the package maintainer should be informed about what is broken
> with the chosen/packaged software release. Certainly you don't ask for
> upstream to filter out *all* reports from all distributions, to return
> distribution-specific ones into a dist's own bug tra
On So, 2010-02-07 at 15:34 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:23:13 +0100, Stefan wrote:
>
> > The question was if the package maintainer should
> > be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the
> > package maintainer who might not be able to handle a
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:23:13 +0100, Stefan wrote:
> The question was if the package maintainer should
> be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the
> package maintainer who might not be able to handle all of these requests
> in the end because it is not his/her full tim
On So, 2010-02-07 at 12:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> There is an analogy actually. Regardless of whether the Fedora Project
> consists of many volunteers, who do unpaid stuff in their spare time,
> Fedora delivers a product and will have to deal with its consumers and
> negative feedba
I don't want to answer all of the messages, so I'll try to sum all of it
in this one...
On 02/05/2010 09:46 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
abrt 1.0 worked here, then
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:20:04 +0100, Stefan wrote:
> On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > To end-users, it's irrelevant "who is supposed to fix something". Their
> > complaints are against the product call Fedora and thus expect "Fedora
> > to fix their product".
> >
On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/07/2010 03:15 AM, Karel Klic wrote:
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> >>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> >>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer t
On 02/07/2010 03:15 AM, Karel Klic wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
>>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
>>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
>>> report should go directly to upstream. Bother
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
>> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
>> instead of upstream
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 21:59 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Thomas Spura
> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> >> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> >> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not A
On 02/06/2010 03:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
rt. ;(
>
> So, I think we need a fixed kernel in updates-testing and wait a bit
> before pushing this to stable, IMHO.
>
> kevin
>
Surely you're not suggesting holding up a decent kernel from going to
stable while waiting for Abrt ?
--
devel maili
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 21:48 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 13:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > And, IIRC, Jiri has already agreed and said this will be implemented, so
> > why bring it up again?
> > --
> > Adam Williamson
> > Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > IRC: adamw | Fe
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 13:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> And, IIRC, Jiri has already agreed and said this will be implemented, so
> why bring it up again?
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassi
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
>
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
> >
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
>
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
> >
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Thomas Spura
wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
>> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
>> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
>> > upstream" button.
>>
>> Ok, and where i
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:03:23 +0100
Karel Klic wrote:
...snip...
> Please consider testing and adding +1 karma to ABRT 1.0.6 in Bodhi.
Sadly, I don't think it's going to get much testing currently.
The only folks who can test it are those that just enable
updates-testing and update abrt. Anyon
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> > think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> > report should go directly to upstream. Bothering
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
> > upstream" button.
>
> Ok, and where is the "submit downstream" button in upstream's bug
> tracke
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 16:22 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > +1. ABRT is just broken in so many ways it's not even funny and should
> > never
> > have been shipped in its current state.
>
> For yum related python backtrace bugs,
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> Well reports should go to the maintainer first, he should forward it
> to upstream as needed.
I disagree. Basically there are two situations:
1. The backtrace or the bug report is incomplete. In 95% of these
cases submitters
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
>> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
>> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 18:03, Karel Klic wrote:
> It became better with later releases, but the bug you described made it
> bad again (for this release).
>
> As far as I can tell, the last large-scale change (the new GUI) was
> finished in 1.0.4. It introduced some bugs, but those are fixed now.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> Updates. ABRT has lowered the hurdle so much that peop
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
> instead of upstream is not the right thing to
Le samedi 06 février 2010 18:03:23, Karel Klic a écrit :
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> > Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> There is a flaw in ABRT 1.0.4, which allows to submit incomplete
> backt
Le samedi 06 février 2010 15:53:03, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus a écrit :
> On Sa, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> > happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
>
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
There is a flaw in ABRT 1.0.4, which allows to submit incomplete
backtraces. It got into the source code during the GUI rewrite.
There is
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > However, I went one step further: I removed ABRT from my systems, not
> > because of issues I would have with it as a Fedora package maintainer,
> > but because of usability issues I am having with it on the u
On Sa, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> Updates. ABRT
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
> IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> to the "needinfo" request).
> I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
> pr
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> However, I went one step further: I removed ABRT from my systems, not
> because of issues I would have with it as a Fedora package maintainer,
> but because of usability issues I am having with it on the user-side and
> because of other issues I am having with it as sys-admi
IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
to the "needinfo" request).
I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
properly.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 10:51 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:46:54 +0100, Christoph wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> > Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> Which kernel release?
> Perhaps
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:46:54 +0100, Christoph wrote:
> What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> abrt 1.0 worked here, then came 1.0.2 which was broken. 1.0.3 was
> working again, but got superseded be
On 02/05/2010 09:46 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> If the situation doesn't change any time soon, we IMHO should consider
> disabling abrt until the issues are fixed.
Agreed.
However, I went one step further: I removed ABRT from my systems, not
because of issues I would have with it as a Fedora
What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
abrt 1.0 worked here, then came 1.0.2 which was broken. 1.0.3 was
working again, but got superseded be 1.0.4 only a few of days later.
This means that most of the time
65 matches
Mail list logo
