Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Tue Sep 24 20:35:43 UTC 2013
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
> 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 ).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the test