On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:58:21PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > 2- ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an > > outstanding "needinfo?" flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he > > shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my > > packages. > > > > Since this has turned into general pony request to the ABRT I shall > throw in one for the reporters > > On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a > maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the > ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those component that a > maintainer has not responded but I also request that those components > get removed from bugzilla.redhat.com. > > > 3- Ability to turn off ABRT for certain packages. Whenever I provide > > an application package with no nonstandard patches and there is a > > crash, it is most definitely not my fault. The user should be > > instructed to take the backtrace upstream to the URL of the package > > and report it in their bug tracker/mailing list. Even better, ABRT can > > file the bug directly upstream. I am willing to provide the > > information of upstream bug trackers/mailing lists for all of my > > packages. > > > This confusion has been going on for enough of release cycles already > and I think it's time for FPC to step in and clarify what are the > maintainers/packagers responsibility towards the Fedora community and > it's user base to avoid any further rifts between QA members and > maintainers. > This one's fesco, not fpc. (Policy about maintaining packages rather than how to create quality packages). Perhaps a slightly easier to implement method of achieving something similar would be to orphan packages that have ignored bug reports rather than to remove their bugzilla components. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgptMeHvxJ1pG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
