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, Ralph