Re: 0.144

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> How about just NEEDINFO'ing them, or CLOSED/DUPLICATE the ABRT ones
> into a single representative?  As an occasional recepient of "hey,
> this new update MIGHT fix your bug so I closed it, but test and reopen
> if not" type notes, I don't much like it.

I can't tell how CLOSED/DUPLICATE differs in the reporter experience from
CLOSED/SOMETHINGELSE.  Marking them as duplicates would probably be
misinformation, since they are different backtraces and we haven't
reproduced/explained exactly what each came from.  I won't make that claim
without a real reason to think they are really the same bug.  

Even if we did, without actually having the original data to reproduce/test
we should then add a comment to test and reopen if the reporter still has
the original input file.  (These are all reports for looking at some core
file, without having included the actual core file.)  So what's the difference?

I would rather dispatch these than leave them lingering in NEEDINFO for
however long.  REOPEN is not the end of the world, if it turns out to be
warranted.  All these are abrt-reported with (IIRC) no sign of follow-up by
the actual human reporters, so I'm not sure there is particular reason to
expect those humans to respond.  Moreover, these are not even abrt-reported
about some crash a user saw--they are abrt-reported about an eu-unstrip
crash that was hidden away in the workings of abrt itself when it was
handling some other application crash, and we don't even know what the
original crash was without seeing the offending core dump file.


Thanks,
Roland