On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +0000 > Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ...snip... > >> > The >> > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3 >> > exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so >> > they haven't had much maintainer love in quite some time (6-18 >> > months). >> >> All the Fedora bugzilla bugs assigned to you, ever: >> http://bit.ly/dTndTs >> A whole 73. >> >> Fedora Bugzilla bugs in NEW or ASSIGNED assigned to me: >> http://bit.ly/gBtVRP >> 810 bugs. >> >> When you deal with as many bugs as I (or some other people) do can you >> take executive decisions on blocking packages in newer revisions. > > How about asking for help? > Co-maintainers on packages that get lots of bugs? > Have you considered training up some bugzappers to help triage your > components? They could at least work on de-duping abrt reports. I agree with Bastien on this one. Its very hard and if I spent all my time dealing with abrt bug reports I'd never do anything else. Besides I thought abrt was support to support de-dupe. >> I bet most of those packages are still functional, and fail to build >> due to some minor changes in the build system, or breakage in >> dependency libraries. > > The ones he's refering to have not built since f12. It's a wonder if > they work at all. ;) For some reason I thought we'd had a mass rebuild since f-12 but maybe that was just python and other sub group stuff. That aside I know of a number of packages that haven't been rebuilt since F-12 and work just fine. >> <snip> >> > ModemManager-0.4-4.git20100720.fc14 [u'631152 NEW'] (build/make) >> > dcbw NetworkManager-openvpn-0.8.1-1.fc14 [u'631111 NEW'] >> > (build/make) dcbw,choeger,huzaifas,steve >> > NetworkManager-vpnc-0.8.1-1.fc14 [u'631194 NEW'] (build/make) dcbw >> >> And I'm guessing this list didn't get read by humans either. > > You are refering to the wrong list. > > That was a list of all things that don't currently build right now in > rawhide. The proposed block list was much smaller and contained things > that have not been built since f12. I don't think blocking things that haven't been rebuilt is such a good criteria. I also happen to know of at least 1 library that fails to build on rawhide and F-14 and works perfectly well and if it was removed I think a large chunk of gnome 3 would fail based on the dependency tree. I bet that would put the cat amongst the pigeons! >> Feel free to insert here complaints about how the Red Hat bugzilla is >> slow, bad at reporting, and that abrt reports with missing >> attachments, poor backtraces and no support for tools like GNOME >> Bugzilla's simple-dup-finedr aren't helping us keep the bug count >> down. It was my understanding that abrt was suppose to block on backtraces without debuginfo but I still regularly get bugs with little or no decent info. What's worse is often they are the first report and abrt de-dupes against that report and still doesn't automatically either update the backtrace with a complete one from other reports or attach a new one. So you end up in a situation with a bug report with 30 dupes and have to ask the users to attach a manual complete one. Not ideal! Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
