On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: >>> 2010/11/4 Orcan Ogetbil : >>>> 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. >>> >>> No need to discuss - it's really useful. I recently closed several >>> issues with the aid of stacktaces sent by ABRT. >> >> I am very happy that the current scheme works well for you. You think >> that we should ignore the outstanding 93% of the ABRT bug reports, and >> the 6000 untouched bugs that will be closed in a month. If we don't do >> anything that 6000 will multiply at the end of the F-13 cycle. > > Well, so what? So a bunch of bug reports got filed, didn't lead to any > changes, and then got closed. According to the figures you sent earlier this week, ca. 93% of all ABRT reports can be expected to suffer this fate. > I mean, I guess looked at from a certain > angle it's 'inefficient', OK, I understand you are wanting to play down the issues ABRT has. > but I don't think we're hitting any particular > resource constraints in terms of Bugzilla use at this point. Why do you think are we discussing/arguing? IMO, the primary underlaying problem we are disscussing here is "ARBT draining away too many resources". Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
