On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 11/3/2010 7:02 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > 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. > > Orcan > > Of the 28 abrt bugs filed against my packages, I think 1 resulted in a > real fix that I needed to apply as a packager. Another was fixed by an > update. The rest are piling up. I don't have the time to fix them > myself. I rarely get any response to my requests for more info (5 are > in needinfo). I haven't been able to get upstream to involved. I'm > seriously considering orphaning pdfedit (14 bugs) over this. 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 stop crashing. It's going to crash just as much. There just won't be bug reports associated with the crashes. 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 figured out how to fix a reason to stop maintaining the software? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
