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

[Popcon-developers] Bug#291747: popularity-contest: Please give stats on source packages as well

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:22:34PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:52:21PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > Yes, what is important to me is that we rank all the source packages. I
> > would remove from the ranking the "not in sid" package (or move them to=
> > end of the ranking). It's at least the easiest to do.
> >=20
> > > 2) How do you define the popularity of source packages ?=20
> > > As the sum of the popularity of each binaries packages ?
> > > This is what is used for Maintainers ranking currently.
> >=20
> > It makes sense for maintainers, but I would say that for source package=
, we
> > should use the max of all achieved ranking. I'd say that it's the metric
> > which would help the translators looking for which package to translate=
=2E I'm
> > not completely sure, in fact. Doing 2 rankings is also easy, but I'm not
> > sure it's worthing our time.
> Hello, I have made a preview here:
> <http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon-exp>
> Please tell me if anything is broken.


I didn't find any error during my rapid browsing, but I'm not sure it
proves anything...

> It use the sum. I could easily change it to use the max, however the
> correct way to compute the max would be to read popcon reports directly
> and to count the number of thoses that report at least one package
> provided by the source package (iow, to merge the reports).

[cut a great explanation of why using the max is really harder to implement]

> The problem is that the website is build from the anonymized results
> for confidentiality. To get correct result here, I would need to add
> source packages info to the anonymized results files, and I am not
> to keen changing the format of that file.

That's prefect. You may want to add a little readme about this on the web
site, but I really don't think that it will be an issue for us. Having some
kind of indication about the popularity of source package is really a great
help for the translators.

Thanks for your time, and please keep me posted when this feature arrives
into the regular popcon.debian.org so that I can start hacking on the l10n

Bye, Mt.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)



Reply to: