On 12/14/2014 08:32 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote: > Metrics suggest that the bottleneck of bug management is in triaging, > not in fixing. I'm going to come out and say that you haven't defined the scope of your metrics or your method of assessing the metrics. Therefore, I can only assume your metrics are about current bug states, rather than historically analyzing Fixed vs. "Fixed After Triaged". If that is the case, these metrics don't accurately reflect anything in the 'process' at all. You need to explain how you got those metrics and what was actually assessed before the metrics can be a good reflection of any status.
So, I ask: What information is your metrics based on: In-depth historical analysis of the bug statuses to determine if having anything marked "Triaged" has any real impact on non-Main packages? Or just the current 'bug status' of the individual bugs? Or just a general overview of bug status over time? (Also, a single month of time, and two data points in your diagram, is not an accurate or usable sample of data for metrics analyzing a process - I'd suggest your metrics be expanded to start at the beginning of a dev cycle and take data points monthly up until the end of the dev cycle for a release and then show the metrics) > > Fixing evolution: http://tinyurl.com/n7qt359 > Triaging evolution: http://tinyurl.com/kyf8h54 > > So what will improve efficacy of bug management right now will be > improvements on how to triage more easily. > Are you certain that's the only bottleneck? Part of me believes that another potential bottleneck is *not* actually the triage process - rather the hurdle of finding individuals willing to maintain the Universe software. As it currently stands, Universe is community supported, so patches and fixes end up on the Community's radar instead of the developers in Main. This was the case with the `nginx` package before I kind of took it under my wing. It is also the case with many other packages still in Universe, including utility tools that network analysts and developers use very day such as Wireshark, in that patches are not actively backported to them (which results in unfixed issues and security holes, the latter of which is not necessarily on the Community radar, but is still relevant to mention). Also, as well, (in the message after the one I'm replying to now), Michel Memeteau makes a good point: Marking bugs as "Won't Fix" or a status that is not relevant in the specific case are another bottleneck - triagers who don't fully understand what should be done. As the bug referenced by Michel had its status reversed by Marc Deslauriers, I won't dwell on this, but the point is still made. Thomas -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
