On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
As far as I am concerned I'd like to drop any reports from 2.16 and
below, but I see how that may be a little to aggressive. What about
dropping reports from 2.14 and below?
Bug-Buddy reports from 2.14 and older are now rejected at
El mar, 10-04-2007 a las 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren escribió:
On 4/9/07, Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, this can be an indication that your fixes are not reaching the
affected people. Maybe you need to explicitly poke the distro(s) in
question and tell them, this
El mié, 11-04-2007 a las 10:31 -0600, Elijah Newren escribió:
In other words, yes, what you ask can be done and _is_ being done.
This is totally awesome :) I didn't know our Bugzilla infrastructure
was so nice.
But to avoid false-positives, we require human intervention (and only
a few
On 4/11/07, Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is totally awesome :) I didn't know our Bugzilla infrastructure
was so nice.
Olav rocks. :-)
But to avoid false-positives, we require human intervention (and only
a few people have the appropriate privileges) involving
On 4/9/07, Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El sáb, 07-04-2007 a las 16:39 +0100, Richard Hughes escribió:
I'm sure other maintainers must be getting as demoralised as myself when
dealing with so many duplicates of a fixed bug.
Still, this can be an indication that your
On 4/8/07, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:01:14PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the length of Redhat, SuSE and Debian release cycles, this will
just make bug-buddy useless for many stable users. Ideally you could
Honestly, I think that =2.14
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:19:12PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:01:14PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 08 avril 2007 à 14:20 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
As far as I am concerned I'd like
El sáb, 07-04-2007 a las 16:39 +0100, Richard Hughes escribió:
I'm sure other maintainers must be getting as demoralised as myself when
dealing with so many duplicates of a fixed bug.
Still, this can be an indication that your fixes are not reaching the
affected people. Maybe you need to
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
As far as I am concerned I'd like to drop any reports from 2.16 and
below, but I see how that may be a little to aggressive. What about
dropping reports from 2.14 and below?
If there are no objections, I'll start with dropping
Le dimanche 08 avril 2007 à 14:20 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
As far as I am concerned I'd like to drop any reports from 2.16 and
below, but I see how that may be a little to aggressive. What about
dropping reports from 2.14
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:01:14PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 08 avril 2007 à 14:20 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
As far as I am concerned I'd like to drop any reports from 2.16 and
below, but I see how that
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 16:01 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
BTW, I'm working on a non-GNOME-dependent replacement to bug-buddy,
which will report crashes in the Debian BTS instead. In the future, it
should save you the Debian-related bugs (if we can manage the number of
bugs...)
What's wrong
Le dimanche 08 avril 2007 à 16:19 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
Oh, and a warning: without having some system in place to
detect duplicates automatically, you will be overwhelmed.
Definitely. This, and the fact such reports are mostly useless without
debugging symbols available. I have some
Hi,
in the last months the bugzilla traffic has risen exponentially because
of (thanks to?) the new bug-buddy which actually manages to submit a
higher percentage of the crashes.
This has some very good effects (since not only we get most of the
bugreports, but we also have statistics
On 07/04/07 16:13, Paolo Borelli wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Personally I am not able anymore to handle my bugmail anymore and even
useful bugreports get lost in the noise.
I usually mark any Crash: ... bugmail as read without even looking at
it nowadays.
As a first step, what do you think of just
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:13 +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
Personally I am not able anymore to handle my bugmail anymore and even
useful bugreports get lost in the noise.
Tell me about it. gnome-power-manager 2.18.0 had a bug where it would
segfault when you locked the screen if HAL was not
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:13 +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
Personally I am not able anymore to handle my bugmail anymore and even
useful bugreports get lost in the noise.
Tell me about it. gnome-power-manager 2.18.0 had a bug where it would
segfault when you locked
[Just noticed that Andrew made most of my email obsolete before I
finished. Maybe you'll see something useful, though, so I'll still
send it.]
On 4/7/07, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:13 +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:
Personally I am not able anymore to handle
18 matches
Mail list logo
