Re: Fundamental flaw in bug reporting system
Adam McKenna writes ("Re: Fundamental flaw in bug reporting system"):
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 05:16:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > It works because it acts as a filter. Ability and willingness to
> > write a good bug report are correlated pretty strongly with ability
> > and willingness to read and understand documentation on how to report
> > bugs.
> Your statements about correlations seem to be based on your opinions and
> anecdotal evidence, rather than data.
I don't think picking a package and comparing bug reports like for
like across two distributions is `anecdotal evidence'. Anecdotal
evidence is statements like `well I tried to submit a bug report and
Ie, what I'm pointing at is some data. It's not very well analysed
and you can complain about the implied methodology.
What is your opinion based on ?
> IMHO, there are two important criteria that should be used to evaluate the
> quality of the bug reporting system
> 1. Bugs get reported in a timely fashion
> 2. Bugs get fixed in a timely fashion
> The amount of noise in the system is really a secondary concern if it leads
> to bugs getting reported faster and fixed faster.
And it is a primary concern if it leads to bugs being introduced more
often or fixed more slowly because the developers are too busy dealing
with bad bug reports.