Adam Jackson ajax at
Mon Sep 27 14:26:28 UTC 2010

On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 15:13 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:48:34AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package.  As you update it through the
> > lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less
> > monotonically.  The bugs that take longest to fix are presumably the
> > hardest ones to fix, and thus the ones that either require significant
> > rewrites (and become out of scope for an update release), or won't get
> > fixed at all.  So it's really just describing what _happens_ naturally
> > if you don't rebase all the time.
> The bug number will probably decrease, but this does not meant that the
> lifetime of a release is long enough to fix them all or even to find
> them all. E.g. if 5 bugs are fixed every month, you will still have the
> same rate of updates for 10 months, unless you just delay updates even
> if the bugs could already be fixed. And also usually not all bugs are
> known when at the beginning of the release.

Those are things that could happen.  All my experience says that's not
what actually happens.  The update rate graphs lmacken does every once
in a while certainly look like the update rate _does_ slow.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list