Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
>> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
>> instead of upstream
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 21:59 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Thomas Spura
> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> >> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> >> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not A
On 02/06/2010 03:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
rt. ;(
>
> So, I think we need a fixed kernel in updates-testing and wait a bit
> before pushing this to stable, IMHO.
>
> kevin
>
Surely you're not suggesting holding up a decent kernel from going to
stable while waiting for Abrt ?
--
devel maili
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 21:48 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 13:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > And, IIRC, Jiri has already agreed and said this will be implemented, so
> > why bring it up again?
> > --
> > Adam Williamson
> > Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > IRC: adamw | Fe
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 13:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> And, IIRC, Jiri has already agreed and said this will be implemented, so
> why bring it up again?
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassi
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
>
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
> >
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
>
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
> >
Am Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:47:23 -0700
schrieb Kevin Fenzi :
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:24:17 -0800
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > Unblocked orphan pisg
>
> I'm going to take pisg... Hopefully to hand it off to another
> interested maintainer soon. ;)
>
> kevin
I have an open review requeston pisg, s
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Thomas Spura
wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
>> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
>> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
>> > upstream" button.
>>
>> Ok, and where i
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:03:23 +0100
Karel Klic wrote:
...snip...
> Please consider testing and adding +1 karma to ABRT 1.0.6 in Bodhi.
Sadly, I don't think it's going to get much testing currently.
The only folks who can test it are those that just enable
updates-testing and update abrt. Anyon
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:24:17 -0800
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Unblocked orphan pisg
I'm going to take pisg... Hopefully to hand it off to another
interested maintainer soon. ;)
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedor
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> > think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> > report should go directly to upstream. Bothering
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
> > upstream" button.
>
> Ok, and where is the "submit downstream" button in upstream's bug
> tracke
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 16:22 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > +1. ABRT is just broken in so many ways it's not even funny and should
> > never
> > have been shipped in its current state.
>
> For yum related python backtrace bugs,
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> Well reports should go to the maintainer first, he should forward it
> to upstream as needed.
I disagree. Basically there are two situations:
1. The backtrace or the bug report is incomplete. In 95% of these
cases submitters
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
>> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
>> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 18:03, Karel Klic wrote:
> It became better with later releases, but the bug you described made it
> bad again (for this release).
>
> As far as I can tell, the last large-scale change (the new GUI) was
> finished in 1.0.4. It introduced some bugs, but those are fixed now.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> Updates. ABRT has lowered the hurdle so much that peop
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
> instead of upstream is not the right thing to
Le samedi 06 février 2010 18:03:23, Karel Klic a écrit :
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> > Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> There is a flaw in ABRT 1.0.4, which allows to submit incomplete
> backt
Le samedi 06 février 2010 15:53:03, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus a écrit :
> On Sa, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> > happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
>
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
There is a flaw in ABRT 1.0.4, which allows to submit incomplete
backtraces. It got into the source code during the GUI rewrite.
There is
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > However, I went one step further: I removed ABRT from my systems, not
> > because of issues I would have with it as a Fedora package maintainer,
> > but because of usability issues I am having with it on the u
On Sa, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> Updates. ABRT
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:14:22AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> By the way, the whole concept of this kind of macros has been frowned upon
> and FESCo already recommended that the MinGW packagers simply paste their
> debuginfo logic directly into the specfiles instead of using this kind of
> ma
Compose started at Sat Feb 6 08:15:09 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
PySolFC-cardsets-1.1-5.2.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
PySolFC-music-4.40-5.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires l
Le Sam 6 février 2010 00:14, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> By the way, the whole concept of this kind of macros has been frowned upon
> and FESCo already recommended that the MinGW packagers simply paste their
> debuginfo logic directly into the specfiles instead of using this kind of
> macros. I gu
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:53:14 +, Leigh wrote:
> IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> to the "needinfo" request).
> I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
> pr
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> However, I went one step further: I removed ABRT from my systems, not
> because of issues I would have with it as a Fedora package maintainer,
> but because of usability issues I am having with it on the user-side and
> because of other issues I am having with it as sys-admi
IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
to the "needinfo" request).
I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
properly.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 10:51 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:46:54 +0100, Christoph wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> > Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> Which kernel release?
> Perhaps
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:46:54 +0100, Christoph wrote:
> What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> abrt 1.0 worked here, then came 1.0.2 which was broken. 1.0.3 was
> working again, but got superseded be
W dniu 04.02.2010 19:41, Erik van Pienbroek pisze:
> Op woensdag 03-02-2010 om 19:33 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Julian
> Sikorski:
>> Hello,
>>
>> today I have decided to retire gnome-applet-netspeed. The upstream
>> repository has not seen a single commit which is not a translation in
>> ages,
33 matches
Mail list logo
