Reliability of data (Was: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).)

To: Gustavo Franco <stratus@debian.org>
Cc: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Reliability of data (Was: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).)
From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:09:55 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 1183021795.4778.21.camel@pitombeira>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706120626h3be043bejae31eaba482555d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706111420o77eace98oa9cbdfcea4466fbd@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20070611235613.GA23804@kitenet.net> <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706120626h3be043bejae31eaba482555d6@mail.gmail.com>

Ter, 2007-06-12 às 10:26 -0300, Gustavo Franco escreveu:
> Any idea on how to collect more reliable data in a opt-in base? Does a
> survey on pentabarf (or public acessible) during debconf makes sense?

Huh.... How can "opt-in" data be more reliable then disperse collection?

daniel

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reliability of data (Was: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).)
  - From: "Gustavo Franco" <stratus@debian.org>

References:
- Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: "Gustavo Franco" <stratus@debian.org>
- Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
- Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: "Gustavo Franco" <stratus@debian.org>

Prev by Date: [Help] WordNet -> dict conversion (Was: [Help] Autoconf problems when trying to build WordNet 3.0 package)
Next by Date: Re: Nexuiz 2.3
Previous by thread: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Next by thread: Re: Reliability of data (Was: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread