On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:58:21PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> 2- ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an
> outstanding "needinfo?" flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he
> shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my
> packages.
>
Since this has turned into general pony request to the ABRT I shall
throw in one for the reporters
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those component that a
maintainer has not responded but I also request that those components
get removed from
bugzilla.redhat.com.
> 3- Ability to turn off ABRT for certain packages. Whenever I provide
> an application package with no nonstandard patches and there is a
> crash, it is most definitely not my fault. The user should be
> instructed to take the backtrace upstream to the URL of the package
> and report it in their bug tracker/mailing list. Even better, ABRT can
> file the bug directly upstream. I am willing to provide the
> information of upstream bug trackers/mailing lists for all of my
> packages.
This confusion has been going on for enough of release cycles already
and I think it's time for FPC to step in and clarify what are the
maintainers/packagers responsibility towards the Fedora community and
it's user base to avoid any further rifts between QA members and
maintainers.
This one's fesco, not fpc. (Policy about maintaining packages rather than
how to create quality packages).
Perhaps a slightly easier to implement method of achieving something similar
would be to orphan packages that have ignored bug reports rather than to
remove their bugzilla components.
-Toshio