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

Re: BoF: Supporting 15,000 packages - How much support do we mean?

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:49:27PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 29/05/2007 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > There were some discussions on -private (and possibly here?) earlier in
> > the year about quality vs quantity of packages.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > I don't think we want to start grading maintainers and I believe there's
> > a consensus that we should not be more selective about packages, but I
> > think it would be a service to our users to grade how well supported
> > packages are. I have a number of ideas for ways in which this could be
> > done, but I think a discussion would yield something better that might
> > eventually be accepted cover a whole release.
> Publishing the date of last upload is a very useful information here,
> especially if you need to choose an application out of several unknown
> alternatives.
> I would love to see the date of last upload published at
> packages.debian.org at least.
> A timestamp Field in every Package (which is automatically created at
> build process) would be even better.

  This is one of many indications. I could cite many others, good or not
so good indicators:
  * size of the changelogs ;
  * number of revisions per upstream release ;
  * average age of bugs on the BTS ;
  * average time to answer to a bug from the maintainer ;
  * average number of new bugs in the week following new uploads ;
  * ...

  Not all this things are not very easy to use, take the number of
revisions per upstream release, it could either be that upstream
releases are not done very often, and that the maintainer does a good
job patching some upstream bugs, or that OTOH he's doing a poor job and
needs 10 uploads to get things right.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpYzobYfwdNE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: