FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-03-2010, 07:41 PM
Bert Desmet
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

hi!

This is something I got in my mail box today.
As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for me?

cheers, Bert

the url of the blog of the guy: http://www.krisbuytaert.be/blog/

== the mail ==

Dear Fedoracommunity,

Over the course of the day I recieved 22^3 mails from your friendly Bug Zapper.
Most of those bugs where bugs I had reported upon crashes using
bug-buddy. Bugs on different desktop tools such as .. synergy,
evolution, gwibber , gnome-settings and probably some others

I do understand that I development goes on and on .. and your fancy
devs don't care anymore about
bugs I reported on Fedora 12 as they are all hacking on Fedora 15.

But what I don't get is that non of these bugs was ever touched,
they've been automatically created , and automatically closed

<a href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2004/09/">Luis</a> already told us
ages ago .. that every project needs a bugmaster apparently Fedora
replaced that bugmaster with a Bug Zapper.

So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 12:02 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Bert Desmet wrote:
> hi!
>
> This is something I got in my mail box today.
> As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for me?
>
> cheers, Bert
>
> the url of the blog of the guy: http://www.krisbuytaert.be/blog/
>
> == the mail ==
>
> Dear Fedoracommunity,
>
> Over the course of the day I recieved 22^3 mails from your friendly Bug Zapper.
> Most of those bugs where bugs I had reported upon crashes using
> bug-buddy. Bugs on different desktop tools such as .. synergy,
> evolution, gwibber , gnome-settings and probably some others
>
> I do understand that I development goes on and on .. and your fancy
> devs don't care anymore about
> bugs I reported on Fedora 12 as they are all hacking on Fedora 15.
>
> But what I don't get is that non of these bugs was ever touched,
> they've been automatically created , and automatically closed
>
> <a href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2004/09/">Luis</a> already told us
> ages ago .. that every project needs a bugmaster *apparently Fedora
> replaced that bugmaster with a Bug Zapper.
>
> So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
> improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
>


Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
obviously did not fit Fedora as is.

From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually
filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the
current setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email)
away who are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good.

What can we do to make it better? Some ideas:

1.
- ABRT stops reporting new bugs to Fedora.
- The user does a self evaluation: Is the bugcoding related, or
packaging related?
- If he thinks the bug is packaging related, or if he's not sure, he
manually files a bug to Fedora bugzilla. Otherwise he notifies the
developers.
- The package maintainer asks for a backtrace
- User reproduces the crash, and puts the bug number in ABRT gui. ABRT
posts the backtrace to the bug report as an attachment.
- If the bug is coding related, the package maintainer can direct the
user to the developers.

2.
There can be a checkbox in pkgdb for maintainers to turn off ABRT bug
reporting for their packages.

3.
?

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 12:55 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:

> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.

I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.

> From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually
> filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the
> current setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email)
> away who are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good.
>
> What can we do to make it better? Some ideas:
>
> 1.
> - ABRT stops reporting new bugs to Fedora.
> - The user does a self evaluation: Is the bugcoding related, or
> packaging related?
> - If he thinks the bug is packaging related, or if he's not sure, he
> manually files a bug to Fedora bugzilla. Otherwise he notifies the
> developers.
> - The package maintainer asks for a backtrace
> - User reproduces the crash, and puts the bug number in ABRT gui. ABRT
> posts the backtrace to the bug report as an attachment.
> - If the bug is coding related, the package maintainer can direct the
> user to the developers.

This is not practical. Users are not in a position to know whether the
crash is in downstream or upstream code.

> 2.
> There can be a checkbox in pkgdb for maintainers to turn off ABRT bug
> reporting for their packages.

This seems reasonable, for packagers who are not in a position to act on
such reports, but then, that's not a great position for a packager to be
in; for instance, I'm a packager who can't code so these reports are of
fairly limited value to me directly, but they would at least give me
good data to pass to the upstream coders of any package I own.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 01:12 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>
> I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
> It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
>

Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)

http://tinyurl.com/39yr832

>> From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually
>> filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the
>> current setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email)
>> away who are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good.
>>
>> What can we do to make it better? Some ideas:
>>
>> 1.
>> - ABRT stops reporting new bugs to Fedora.
>> - The user does a self evaluation: Is the bugcoding related, or
>> packaging related?
>> - If he thinks the bug is packaging related, or if he's not sure, he
>> manually files a bug to Fedora bugzilla. Otherwise he notifies the
>> developers.
>> - The package maintainer asks for a backtrace
>> - User reproduces the crash, and puts the bug number in ABRT gui. ABRT
>> posts the backtrace to the bug report as an attachment.
>> - If the bug is coding related, the package maintainer can direct the
>> user to the developers.
>

Hence I added "if he's not sure". Please read again.

> This is not practical. Users are not in a position to know whether the
> crash is in downstream or upstream code.
>
>> 2.
>> There can be a checkbox in pkgdb for maintainers to turn off ABRT bug
>> reporting for their packages.
>
> This seems reasonable, for packagers who are not in a position to act on
> such reports, but then, that's not a great position for a packager to be
> in; for instance, I'm a packager who can't code so these reports are of
> fairly limited value to me directly, but they would at least give me
> good data to pass to the upstream coders of any package I own.
>

I played the middle man in some of the bug reports. The user did not
seem to want to contact the developer directly. The upstream asked for
something, and I forwarded it to the user. This went back and forth a
couple times until I realized that this was highly inefficient, and
mostly a waste of time (since one of the parties gave up eventually).
There's got to be a better way.

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 01:59 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
> >> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
> >> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
> >
> > I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
> > It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
> >
>
> Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/39yr832

Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to
Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been
closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the
resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's
resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool.

(I just searched for bugs with [abrt] in the subject reported against
Fedora, which gives the 31,603 total, then ran the same search but with
the above resolution restrictions).

> >> From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually
> >> filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the
> >> current setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email)
> >> away who are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good.
> >>
> >> What can we do to make it better? Some ideas:
> >>
> >> 1.
> >> - ABRT stops reporting new bugs to Fedora.
> >> - The user does a self evaluation: Is the bugcoding related, or
> >> packaging related?
> >> - If he thinks the bug is packaging related, or if he's not sure, he
> >> manually files a bug to Fedora bugzilla. Otherwise he notifies the
> >> developers.
> >> - The package maintainer asks for a backtrace
> >> - User reproduces the crash, and puts the bug number in ABRT gui. ABRT
> >> posts the backtrace to the bug report as an attachment.
> >> - If the bug is coding related, the package maintainer can direct the
> >> user to the developers.
> >
>
> Hence I added "if he's not sure". Please read again.

My point is that you may as well not bother with the cases where the
user is sure, because they'll be very rare, and such users will know
what to do anyway.

> > This is not practical. Users are not in a position to know whether the
> > crash is in downstream or upstream code.
> >
> >> 2.
> >> There can be a checkbox in pkgdb for maintainers to turn off ABRT bug
> >> reporting for their packages.
> >
> > This seems reasonable, for packagers who are not in a position to act on
> > such reports, but then, that's not a great position for a packager to be
> > in; for instance, I'm a packager who can't code so these reports are of
> > fairly limited value to me directly, but they would at least give me
> > good data to pass to the upstream coders of any package I own.
> >
>
> I played the middle man in some of the bug reports. The user did not
> seem to want to contact the developer directly. The upstream asked for
> something, and I forwarded it to the user. This went back and forth a
> couple times until I realized that this was highly inefficient, and
> mostly a waste of time (since one of the parties gave up eventually).
> There's got to be a better way.

I'm not sure there is. Implementing a whole separate system for abrt to
report to is essentially just institutionalizing the middle-man. But
hey, if we go that way, fine. It's worth noting, though, that we're not
short of proposals for implementing an intermediary system for abrt,
we've already had one for a while. We're short on people *writing* the
intermediary system.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 02:10 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>> >> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>> >> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>> >
>> > I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
>> > It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
>> >
>>
>> Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/39yr832
>
> Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to
> Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been
> closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the
> resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's
> resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool.
>

I am pretty sure a subset of these closed bugs are "mass-closing" of
bugs when a maintainer updates the software. Sometimes, when you
forward the report upstream, they don't understand the output either,
and say "it may be fixed, just update and try". You update the
software, put it to testing, and ask the user if it is fixed for him.
The user doesn't respond as usual. Then you mark it as fixed without
really knowing what's going on. Then you have such statistics. YAY!

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 02:23 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>>> >> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>>> >> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>>> >
>>> > I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
>>> > It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/39yr832
>>
>> Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to
>> Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been
>> closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the
>> resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's
>> resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool.
>>
>
> I am pretty sure a subset of these closed bugs are "mass-closing" of
> bugs when a maintainer updates the software. Sometimes, when you
> forward the report upstream, they don't understand the output either,
> and say "it may be fixed, just update and try". You update the
> software, put it to testing, and ask the user if it is fixed for him.
> The user doesn't respond as usual. Then you mark it as fixed without
> really knowing what's going on. Then you have such statistics. YAY!
>

I randomly picked 20 bug reports out of those 2,216 that were closed
CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE.

1 had the software patched, and updated (Good fix)
2 had some sort of discussion (1-2 messages) before the maintainer
updates the software and marks it fixed
17 had no conversation at all. The maintainer just updates the
software to the next version.

Of course some of these might be real fixes. I didn't look deeply into it.

However, believing that these bugs are "fixed" thanks to the ABRT
reports sounds to me like wishful thinking.

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 02:35 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/04/2010 03:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>>>> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>>>> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>>>
>>> I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback.
>>> It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'.
>>>
>>
>> Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open)
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/39yr832
>
> Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to
> Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been
> closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the
> resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's
> resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool.

2216/31603 = 7%

With all due respect, to me, this qualifies as ineffective, esp when
considering the communicational overhead/noise attached to them.

IMO, the more interesting figure would be

* How many of these fixed bugs would not have been fixed if abrt wasn't
around. My (wild) guess is, not much more, because serious and
reproduceable bugs would have been manually reported in any case.

* How many of the "unfixed bugs" remained unfixed because abrt's reports
are not reporting sufficient information to allow maintainers to
investigate. As far as the packages I am maintaining are concerned, I
haven't been able to fix any bug in my packages due to abrt reports.
As far as I as a user am concerned, none of the bugs I had reported via
abrt was fixed. In both cases, however I am experiencing the noise abrt
causes.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 02:58 AM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/3/2010 7:02 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
> Orcan

Of the 28 abrt bugs filed against my packages, I think 1 resulted in a
real fix that I needed to apply as a packager. Another was fixed by an
update. The rest are piling up. I don't have the time to fix them
myself. I rarely get any response to my requests for more info (5 are
in needinfo). I haven't been able to get upstream to involved. I'm
seriously considering orphaning pdfedit (14 bugs) over this.

0rion
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 04:05 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 7:02 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
> > that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
> > obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
> > Orcan
>
> Of the 28 abrt bugs filed against my packages, I think 1 resulted in a
> real fix that I needed to apply as a packager. Another was fixed by an
> update. The rest are piling up. I don't have the time to fix them
> myself. I rarely get any response to my requests for more info (5 are
> in needinfo). I haven't been able to get upstream to involved. I'm
> seriously considering orphaning pdfedit (14 bugs) over this.

My question would be 'why'? There seems to be an assumption that an open
bug report you can't fix is a serious problem; of course in a sense it
is, but then, it's not as if, if we remove or otherwise change abrt,
software is going to magically stop crashing. It's going to crash just
as much. There just won't be bug reports associated with the crashes. I
guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people have experienced
crashes you haven't yet figured out how to fix a reason to stop
maintaining the software?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org