On 08/17/2010 01:11 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Colin Walters<walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to propose a general rule that ABRT crash logs should remain >> "assigned" to the actual application, unless an actual investigation >> has been done and there's a "reasonable" certainty the flaw is in the >> library code in which it happened to crash. >> >> Rationale: Applications are more likely to be buggy (I'm just >> asserting this, but it seems obvious), and just because a crash >> happened inside the library, particularly when C/C++ is involved, >> means nothing; the flaw could still be in the application. If we >> reassign them, it's harder to make all crashes for an application >> visible. >> >> I'm fine with being added to a CC list, but reassigning is more of a mess. >> >> Sample crash: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624098 > > Hah I proposed the opposite here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603289 ... in my case I > get lots of compiz bugs that a clearly mesa / driver bugs and all I > can do do is to reassign them. > I got tired of doing that so I filed said bug. Since there's no systematic way of figuring out if it's the app or the library, perhaps the bug should be filed against both? I don't think Bugzilla allows specifying two components for the same bug so it would have to be two separate bugs, which sounds heavy-handed. Two mitigating circumstances are: - abrt would only do it if the stack trace clearly indicates that a library is involved - bug reviewers can quickly close the superfluous one -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
