Re: Bugzilla: Reducing bugspam and finding patches

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 �7:25 +0200, Olav Vitters a �it :
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:13:28AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 00:39 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > 
> > > 3. Already fixed (duplicate)
> > >    Some crashers have been fixed a long time ago, but they still receive
> > >    daily bugreports. These bugreports can now be rejected automatically.
> > >    For this the first 5 functions of the stacktrace are used, coupled
> > >    with the GNOME version (to prevent regressions being rejected).
> > 
> > 	This one worries me a little - e.g. look at one of the panel crashers:
> > 
> > 150809 /GNOME2\.8\./ gtk_widget_set_sensitive g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__POINTER g_closure_invoke g_signal_has_handler_pending g_signal_emit_valist gnome-panel
> 
> This one was added by one of the other gnome-panel maintainers, Vincent
> Untz. It could certainly match multiple crashers, but it is specific for
> gnome-panel in GNOME2.8 (the stacktrace is limited to gnome-panel bugs). 

Indeed I added it, so I'm the one people want to flame :-)
However, I added it only because it's for *gnome-panel* *2.8* bugs (I
did not add it before being able to specify that it was a gnome-panel
bug).

It's pretty clear to me that we should use this feature with caution. As
2.8 is relatively old now, I think most (if not all) panel crashers were
reported and this is why I added this bug there.

Btw, Olav, it may make sense to add the possibility to verify that the
stack trace comes from the gnome-panel program (instead of looking if
it's assigned to the gnome-panel product).

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas press�