abrt + X Error => zillions of duplicate bug reports?

[Yaakov Nemoy]

2009/11/24 Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>:
<snip>

> Finally, we considered - and rather approved of - the proposal that's
> been floated on this list (and was floating in the meeting by Will
> Woods) to consider using the mechanism used by the kernel developers for
> kernel oopses: instead of being reported direct to Bugzilla, these are
> reported to an intermediate site (kerneloops.org) and can be promoted
> from there to Bugzilla if appropriate. Will is planning to work on this
> idea after finishing up some AutoQA work, and will talk to abrt team
> about it and see if they are interested in helping. He would welcome
> contact from anyone else who's interested in helping with that, too.

Why not cut a bit of the bureaucraucy and extra levels here? Instead of an intermediate system with all the overhead that goes in to creating and maintaining such a system, why not just class all the bugs from abrt in a seperate tag or component or something in bugzilla?

If there's an intermediate system, someone has to go through it, packagemaintainers need to be trained to use it, and the entire thing needs to be triaged, so bugs can be combined and sent to bugzilla. This is alot of work.

If you use bugzilla for this, you still have to triage all the bugs, combine duplicates, but package maintainers can still see bugs. We might allow them to ignore the untriaged abrt bugs if it bugs them (pun intended) but it avoids the issue where they go 'well i'm not learning yet another system to track bugs, bugzilla is annoying enough'.

-Yaakov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 272 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091124/8b1bb790/attachment.sig>