Description of problem: I have reproduced that I can report one WARN_ON (http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=native_apic_write_dummy) multiple times per time I got hit by it on my Inspiron 510m. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): abrt-1.0.7-1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Produce something kerneloops sends to abrt 2. Try report it multiple times. Actual results: It succeeds each time (even after abrt tells you the crash has been reported) and the counter on kerneloops.org increases Expected results: It should only report each issue once. Additional info: I have yet to find out if it reports a WARN_ON with a abrt crash count of 20 time to kerneloops.org 20 times.
Yes. I think it makes sense. If user wants to report something twice, the program should not pretend it knows better.
I do not. First: It will undermine the "respect" from the kernel devs if there is a suspicion that some of the crashes/WAIT_ONs/whatever may have "ballooned" hit count. Second: as a user I expect he program to only report the times the crash/whatever actually occurred. Lets take an example from the real world: I have an laptop that every time I start or resume and sometimes even by some events I am not sure about triggers an WAIT_ON in the acpi-code. Lets say that I have not had access to internet an amount of starts/resumes, that something other has also trigger this WAIT_ON and so on. Then when I finally have an connection I expect ABRT to report the unreported amount of times this WAIT_ON have occurred. I do _NOT_ expect the program to only send the amount of times I hit "Send Report"... Also if I where an kernel subsystem developer I expect the numbers from kerneloops.org to reflect "real-world-occurrences" of a crash/WAIT_ON/whatever, and not possible be one user sending an large amount of reports for one occurrence because he believes it will be fixed faster that way (yes, I have talked to this kind of users, I know they exists).
(In reply to comment #2) >> Yes. I think it makes sense. If user wants to report something twice, the program should not pretend it knows better. > I do not. I read your arguments, I understood them, but they did not convince me. Looks like we can only agree to disagree. Sorry...
I think one compromise I can live with is if abrt asked you: You have already reported this once. Are you sure you want to report it again? [ Yes ] [ Cancel ]
(In reply to comment #4) > I think one compromise I can live with is if abrt asked you: > > You have already reported this once. > Are you sure you want to report it again? > [ Yes ] [ Cancel ] I was thinking about the same, seems reasonable, will add this question to gui. Jirka
This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I think one compromise I can live with is if abrt asked you: > > > > You have already reported this once. > > Are you sure you want to report it again? > > [ Yes ] [ Cancel ] > > I was thinking about the same, seems reasonable, will add this question to gui. > > Jirka Was this plan dropped?
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > I think one compromise I can live with is if abrt asked you: > > > > > > You have already reported this once. > > > Are you sure you want to report it again? > > > [ Yes ] [ Cancel ] > > > > I was thinking about the same, seems reasonable, will add this question to gui. > > > > Jirka > > Was this plan dropped? No, but we had more serious problems, so this slipped :-/
(In reply to comment #9) > No, but we had more serious problems, so this slipped :-/ No problem, just wanted to make sure if this was dropped or not. And now that I revisit the bug, I think the dialogue is a good idea, but when implementing is it possible to make it appear only when the "last crash time" is older then the "last reported" time? I have seen the fixes (for the better) that abrt has gotten, only current problem I have is the filed bug that you need to fill in info to post a kerneloops. So thanks for the other work.;)
*** Bug 641051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
I think this is fixed. There is pretty clear distinction in gui between already reported and not reported bugs, so user see if he's trying to re-report something. And also bugzilla plugin asks if user want's to re-report the problem if it was already reported.