On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:12:41AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:24:48AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > Well, if with "touching" you mean NMU'ing right away to score a point, I > > > wouldn't call it "possitive". > > That's why new bugs are assigned only once a month, though. Players > > will have one month to get their bugs fixed, and doing it faster will > > not help their score. A hasty NMU will just increase the chance of > > the bug being reopened (or otherwise contested), which is bad for their > > score. > > And would sending a patch to the maintainer and getting it fixed in a MU > help their score in the same way as uploading themselves?
The person who uploads doesn't really matter - if the bug is closed (either within the month, or soonish afterwards if it was pending/DELAYED), that's all that really counts at the end of the day. See elsewhere in the thread on 'Behavioral effects of metrics' - this is why closing the bug is the thing that is measured, and not uploading. Specifically in the case of overly-fast NMUs: - 'new' or 'active' bugs are already on the list of things to eliminate from the list of candidate bugs. If the bug was assigned to anybody at all, it's already been unattended for quite some time. - "Get it right, all else can be forgiven"; I think it's fairly clear how this fits in. - You still have to deal with the real-world consequences of your actions, as always. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
pgp9ib3IYM9tF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
