Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 22:09 +0100 schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 19:45 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> > P.S.: Now that we gather all these data, do we need a general policy for
> > it? Should the bugzappers take care of forwarding bugs?
>
> Not really. abrt reports are bug reports on crashing applications. The
> fact that they're automatically generated doesn't really matter a lot.
> Our policies should be as wide as practical, having special policies for
> some bugs just because they happen to have been generated by an
> automated tool doesn't seem to make sense.
I don't think they should be treated different from other bug reports
because they were filed with ABRT but because
* crashing apps usually have nothing to do with Fedora or
packaging, but indicate problems in the code.
* they contain info that is very useful for upstream while most
packagers can't deal with it.
* they are hard to reproduce but easy to triage (review for
completeness and forward them).
* because without forwarding them the whole ABRT approach is
useless. We are gathering data but the reports are going to be
closed WONTFIX by the bugzappers if they are not forwarded in
time.
> Where the package in question actually has Bugzappers coverage - which
> is nowhere near a majority of packages at present - this should already
> be covered by the normal triage process.
The bug triage process mentiones upstreaming only as an "optional step"
while for backtraces upstreaming should be the default procedure. Crash
reports gathered with Dr. Konqi for example directly go to bugs.kde.org
but not to our bugzilla.
Regards,
Christoph
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
