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

Re: Development standards for unstable

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:11:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Well it's nice in theory. The problem is that you have to set the
> > threshold high enough to exempt glibc and dpkg, and when you do that,
> > I have not yet found a metric that complains about any other packages
> > (I've tried two or three times to invent one).
> I think the problem might be that the formula doesn't take the package's
> installed base and/or age into account. The number of bugs in the BTS
> tends to increase as both values increase without much connection to
> the actual number of bugs in the package that affect many users, since
> people eventually hit most of the edge cases, and those sort of bugs are
> often the least likely to get fixed.

It might help, if there was only a good way to sample this
information. popcon is pretty dubious, and I've got no idea offhand
for a good way of detecting the age of a package (particularly when
you consider package renames and changelog rotation and such).

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: