Re: Announcement: New bugs pages, status of renaming
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Chris Walker wrote:
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).
I think I tried to explain in the past but in case I forgot to do so
here is what I plan to do:
New field: Meta-Depends: svn://...
works in:
a) Metapackages:
Ignored, you need an extra Depends med-bio. This is a
save solution to make sure that we profit from the work
of the other project.
b) Tasks+Bugs pages:
Obtain the content of the task file under the given SVN URL
and include the dependencies as if they would have been
mentioned here. This makes sure we are always up to date
with the other projects work
This idea originates to the Extremadura meeting this year in March
when Frederic Lehobey worked on the science tasks files. Unfortunately
I was not yet able to implement this, but I'd regard this as a reasonable
and straightforeward solution.
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.
I do not think that the age of a bug should have an influence on the
result. Open bugs are just open bugs and should be fixed. Help is
needed for old and new bugs.
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).
Yes, I realised that my measure is quite harsh and I see the problem
that if people who are willing to work on the bugs will not see any
result on the status might loose interest. So we should take this
serious. So if enybody wants to make suggestions on better limits
for the assessments (see Legend on overview page) I keen on hearing
this.
Moreover I wonder whether I should make theses limits configurable
per Blend. There is a configuration file per Blend anyway - putting
the limits there to adapt to the specific blend (metapackages with less
dependencies will be easier to get into shape than those with more).
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.
I agraa this was a rough estimate for the first shot. I was guided by
the fact that all of these three are release critical and so all of them
should be fixxed immediately. So what would be the proper score for
"even more immediately"???
Thanks for your comments
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: