[CentOS-devel] handling ABRT
ralph.angenendt at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 21:29:39 UTC 2010
Am 26.11.10 23:52, schrieb Jeff Johnson:
> On Nov 26, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> So it is either abrt without reporting, no abrt, or b.c.o running on a
>> bugzilla instance, afaics.
> There are fallacies in reaching the conclusion that
> those are the only possible outcomes.
Hence "afaics" :)
> Bugzilla is almost certainly a reasonable end-point for ABRT
> if you have gazillions of paid employees who are
> paid (as part of a "service" model) to track
> store-bought product defects and paying customer complaints.
That is what I am not sure about and especially where my hesitations
come from (seeing how many people help tracking bugs on bugs.centos.org).
> But is that the right model for CentOS? Hardly imho ...
As said, I'm neither bought nor sold, but I do see the problem with the
amount of people.
> With kernel.org, bugs are tracked as a software devel process metric, not as
> a paid wage slave performance indicator.
Harsh words :) But yeah, most abrt reports probably would have to be
reported upstream, sooner or later.
> SO I suggest that you should look at other alternative end-points
> for ABRT automated segfault/bug end-points, and view as a
> objective distro "process" metric to prioritize scarce resources, not track,
> bug reports. No user id's needed is just one of many benefits.
What I do not want to miss (well, for me too) is the automation of
information collection within abrt for those people who really want to
file a bug - because it can lead to better bug reports.
What we cannot do is piping those reports into bz.redhat.com :)
Im rather agnostic into which bug reporting tool people do throw their
reports into, but I don't want to run two of those.
Thanks for your insight,
More information about the CentOS-devel