Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I'm upstreaming reports from 'lazy idiots' too and some of them get
> fixed. In fact the percentage of the ones that get fixed is not
> different from the 'active' reporters cause usually the backtrace
> contains all necessary data for the developer to fix the problem.
ABRT should file the bugs upstream in the first place, an automated tool
should do the right thing in the first place. Of course that means having to
deal with several different bug trackers, not just Bugzilla. But it's part
of doing it right.
> If you really miss certain information ('Can you reproduce this crash?
> What did you do when foo crashed?' and that kind of stuff), you can use
> bugzilla's mass change feature that you are now using to close all the
> bugs.
No.
1. I need to identify the bugs which are missing information in the first
place, which is more than just "everything in the list produced by my saved
search since the last mass needinfo" (which is what I'm using now).
2. I need to actually file the bug upstream, which is a manual process for
every single bug. We have no tools to automate that (and Bugzilla-only tools
aren't going to help because Gnash uses Savannah's bug tracker).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
