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.
> 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.
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,
CentOS-devel mailing list