Re: Measuring Debian progress
On 07/01/07 at 20:04 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> This has reminded me that during Debconf6, I meant to propose that we
> set up some carefully selected statistics to measure the progress of
> Debian development. The statistics needs to be selected very carefully
> because there is a possibility that people will optimize their behavior
> according to the statistics, and we'd want them to optimize in the right
> way.
Very interesting idea :-)
> Here's what I'd like to propose: we publish, once per week or so, the
> following numbers, on debian-devel or so:
I would suggest to automatically generate webpages with that info
instead. This would allow to include graphs (histograms would be
typically very suitable for the "bugs ages" and "number of packages with
n bugs" stats).
> * Total number of non-pseudo-packages that bugs.debian.org knows about.
> * Number of open bugs, in total, and for each severity, and a count of
> all non-wishlist, non-wontfix bugs.
> * Number of bugs opened or closed since the previous report.
how easy is it to get the number of "closed" bugs in the context of the
versioned BTS ? Does the BTS provide an easy way to get this info,
without browsing the web page ? Or would the stats script need to
understand version-tracking ?
> * Median and maximum times for first reply to a non-wishlist bug.
You mean "by the maintainer", or "globally" ? If it's "by the
maintainer", then you get the problem of determining which email
addresses the maintainer could use.
> * Median and maximum times since latest reply to a non-wishlist bug.
> * Median and maximum age of currently open bugs.
> * Median and maximum duration from opening to closing of closed bugs
> (total, and since previous report).
Reopens have to be taken into account as well.
I'm interested. If you start something, I'll try to help, especially if
I magically start finding some free time :-)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: