[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RC-stats paragraph on DPN

Hi Francesca,
Ah, that good old buggy paragraph :-)
I guess the ideal solution would be to link to a page with continuously updated numbers. http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ should be that page, but it doesn't present the statistics the same way, and even when it gives the number of bugs affecting testing, it gives a number different from UDD's :-(
Now, until we get such a page, I also see 2 solutions - sending the latest statistics or sending those mentioned by the latest publication specifying they're "as of". I do not have a strong preference between these 2 options, but there is one thing to keep in mind if we choose the first; we need to keep a link where readers can understand what the numbers mean, in particular the "Ignoring bugs which are easily solved or on the way to being solved, roughly speaking" number. 

On 2012-11-12 09:21, Francesca Ciceri wrote:

Hi there,

I wanted to ask your opinion about the RC-stats paragraph on DPN:
historically we relied on Alexander weekly blog post on the number of RC
bugs and related stats. When he stopped to publish it, we decided to use
directly the udd queries to give our readers those numbers. Now,
fortunately, Richard Hartmann started to send a weekly blogpost similar
to Alexander's one, so we decided to switch back to it.

As you probably know, DPN is frozen on Friday night and published on Monday
morning. This means that sometimes the number of RC-bugs on the paragraph
are not precise. So, here the question: do we prefer to have a link to
a blogpost (Richard's one) providing a detailed analysis of the numbers
(which are slightly inaccurate at the moment of DPN publication) or we
prefer to use directly udd queries (ie: means more accurate numbers, as
we can add them last minute, but not detailed analysis of them)?

We could also ask Richard to publish his blogpost on Monday morning-
What do you think about it?

Below the related discussion on IRC, mostly ftr.


<MadameZou>  Maulkin: we used these numbers →
http://richardhartmann.de/blog/posts/2012/11/09-Debian_Release_Critical_Bug_report_for_Week_45/
But note that numbers usually changes in the time range between freeze
and publication, so maybe this is the reason?

<Maulkin>  MadameZou: Ack - I have access to the source for that, so you can always
ask me for the latest number

<MadameZou>  the fact is, if we decide to link a blog post it's probably
safe stick with the numbers on it (no matter of the changes during the we),
for consistency reasons. if we decide to re-write the paragraph with just the
link to the udd queries (ie without linking to a blog post) we can be more
accurate and add last minute numbers

<MadameZou>  what do you guys prefer?

* Maulkin would suggest linking to
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezy&merged=ign&rc=1

<taffit>  MadameZou: ACK to the consistency with the blog post,
that contain moreinfo anyway (so it's good IMHO to link to it)
Reply to: