Re: Announcement: New bugs pages, status of renaming
Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> writes:
>
> Ahh, yes. This is definitely planed. I also wanted to link from
> the tasks pages to the bugs pages somehow indicating the bug status
> as well. But I wanted to gather some comments on my estimation of
> the status first.
I really like the idea - so here are my comments:
The biology status doesn't take into account the bugs in the two
metapackages it depends on (though how you'd do this, I'm not quite sure).
As we've said in private e-mail, absolute bug counts are a measure of
help required, whereas quality would best be measured by normalising
to number of packages. I think you've made the right choice here.
You might also want to ignore, or reduce the weight of bugs under a
certain age - perhaps an absolute cut off of 28 days, or perhaps a
sliding scale depending upon severity - with critical bugs becoming
important immediately. This might not be worth the effort of
implementing though.
With the exception of Mathematics-dev and biology, all the tasks have
the "red" status, and biology would too if it reflected the state of
the underlying tasks. I think therfore you're too harsh - and should
make it easier to obtain satisfactory status (but if/when we get good
at fixing bugs you could change it).
I don't think you should give different severities the same score - as
you do for critical grave and serious, but I'm not sure I can come up
with a better set of numbers than you have.
Chris
Reply to: