Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 09/24/2013 07:17 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> As Michael Schwendt has pointed out, NEW implies neither that the bug 
> hasn't been looked at nor that there has been no activity on it.
>
> Russ Herrold is also correct: if bugs are not being looked at, then 
> that's not the fault of the bug-tracking system, it's the fault of the 
> people who are supposed to be looking at the bugs.
>
> Drawing conclusions from a single package is rigging the game, since 
> what we're discussing is that some packages are maintained better than 
> others.
>
> Looking at F18 is rigging the game, because a package maintainer may 
> have (reasonably) stopped looking at F18 bugs when F19 came out if 
> s/he knows that F19 has a new version which fixes significant bugs.
>
> Having said all that, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that NEW 
> bugs haven't been looked at or responded to, and try to answer the 
> question of what percentage of Fedora bugs aren't being looked at or 
> responded to in a reasonable amount of time. My methodology is to look 
> at the total of all Fedora bugs filed between one and two months ago 
> (to limit the scope of the problem -- otherwise you're just dealing 
> with too many bugs) and then to look at how many bugs within that same 
> time period are in state NEW.
>
> There are 2,129 NEW Fedora bugs and 5,199 total Fedora bugs filed 
> between 2013-07-24 and 2013-08-24. That's only 40% of the total number 
> of bugs, which disproves assertion that the majority of bugs aren't 
> being dealt with. If we go back a month earlier, from 2013-06-24 to 
> 2013-07-24, there are 1,715 NEW bugs out of 3,932 total bugs, i.e., 
> 43%. Still not the majority. A month earlier than that, 1,407 out of 
> 3,804 = 36%. Still not the majority.
>
> I entirely agree with you that it would be better if those percentages 
> were lower. But driving those numbers is not the end goal. The end 
> goal is to improve the quality of Fedora as much as we can with the 
> resources we have, and I (and many others, clearly) don't believe that 
> no longer tracking Fedora bugs in RHBZ will accomplish that.

Working directly with upstream might improve it ( we ofcourse dont know 
until we actually try that ) since it will cut out the middle man ( the 
packager ) or give the upstream maintainer ( if he's the middle man ) 
more time to work on the bug discuss and pass it's patch through 
upstream ( which needs to be done in most cases anyway ).

JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20130924/bf420814/attachment.html>