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
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 11/26/2010 07:41 PM, Stefan Held wrote:
> I have no clue why Mantis is preferred by the team,
> maybe someone could share the light.
>

As Ralph already pointed out - the reasons boiled down to limited
resources, and what we really wanted out of the issue tracker. Bz at the
time seemed very complex, neither Johnny nor I were very keen on
spending lots of time with perl + we wanted an easy way to interface the
issue tracker stuff with the website. Many years down the road, the
integration has not happened! But the much simpler schema and mysql
requirements behind mantis have come in handy when building reports and
integrating other tools.

Also worth noting is that we actually migrated FROM bugzilla to mantis,
the first instance that we setup on the split from caoslinux was bugzilla.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Just a quick summary of where we are with abrt :

- Split the effort into 2 tasks

1) disable abrt's access to non .centos.org web properties. Target: 6.0
Release

2) Evaluate options for a longer term solution, one of which might be to
migrate from mantis to bugzilla and have abrt feed that. Target: 6.1

Felix's comment is interesting. And I think it will boil down to the
level of and the kind of a triage team that can come together to handle
those issues.

And, evaluating the bugzilla move might be worth doing for reasons even
beyond abrt. Maybe as step-1 for the single-auth-mechanism, not sure how
much of work will be needed to get proper single-sign-on going though.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Am 02.12.10 03:02, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
> Just a quick summary of where we are with abrt :
>
> - Split the effort into 2 tasks
>
> 1) disable abrt's access to non .centos.org web properties. Target: 6.0
> Release
>
> 2) Evaluate options for a longer term solution, one of which might be to
> migrate from mantis to bugzilla and have abrt feed that. Target: 6.1

+1 there.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 12/02/2010 10:52 PM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 02.12.10 03:02, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
>> Just a quick summary of where we are with abrt :
>>
>> - Split the effort into 2 tasks
>>
>> 1) disable abrt's access to non .centos.org web properties. Target: 6.0
>> Release
>>
>> 2) Evaluate options for a longer term solution, one of which might be to
>> migrate from mantis to bugzilla and have abrt feed that. Target: 6.1
>
> +1 there.
>

Wise decision, +1 .

best regards.

--
Athmane Madjoudj
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel