<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/10/2014 06:12 AM, Richard W.M.
Jones wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20141010101221.GB856@redhat.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:39:34PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I was curious about the rate of bug reporting in Fedora, and did
this quick experiment. I thought it might be interesting to folks
here who either work on the infrastructure or are curious about
long-term collaboration trends in Fedora.
I checked the date of reporting of every 10,000th bug (bugzilla #1,
#10000, etc, all the way to the recent 1150000---see attached data).
Some bugs were private so I didn't have access to their info, but I
got enough data to calculate bug velocity (increase in the bug
number divided by the time interval) over time. The data is a little
noisy, but you can clearly see the ever-increasing trend.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm afraid there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
- Automated bugs (eg from abrt) may or may not be considered to be
real bug reports.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Just a COUPLE? Thank you, kind Sir---I would have said it's rife
with problems. For one thing<br>
it totally ignores the distinction of Fedora vs. EPEL and RedHat
bugs. Still, it gives an order of<br>
magnitude estimate and the trend. No matter what the origin of the
bugs, they still have to <br>
be dealt with somehow.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20141010101221.GB856@redhat.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Bugzilla has both imported large bug sets from other databases at
various times (when Red Hat acquired other companies), and also has
had periods when it didn't allocate bug numbers sequentially. At
one point IIRC each new bug report incremented the bug ID by 10.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Ah so that's where the spikes come from. I was wondering.<br>
</body>
</html>