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

DPN RC bugs statistics (was Re: Debian Project News 2010/11 frozen. Please review and translate)

 On 2010-09-06 15:27, Justin B Rye wrote:

Filipus Klutiero wrote:

According to the<a href="http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php";>unofficial
	release-critical bug counter</a>, the upcoming release,
	Debian 6.0<q>Squeeze</q>, is currently affected by
226 release-critical bugs. Ignoring bugs which are easily solved
	or on the way to being solved, roughly speaking, about
129 release critical bugs remain to be solved for the
	release to happen.

Heh :-S
So now the high number excludes bugs fixed in unstable? Sorry but this
is not what the formulation suggests to me at all :-(

I can't work out what it is you're suggesting should be done to
improve the text.  Would you prefer the following?

   According to the<a
   href="http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php";>unofficial
   release-critical bug counter</a>, the upcoming release, Debian 6.0
   <q>Squeeze</q>, is currently affected by a total of 226
   release-critical bugs.<a
   href="http://blog.schmehl.info/Debian/rc-stats/#2010-35";>More
   detailed statistics</a>  are also available.  Counting (roughly
   speaking) only the bugs for which a fix must be found before the
   release can happen, by the DPN's<a
   href="http://wiki.debian.org/ProjectNews/RC-Stats";>standard
   criteria</a>), about 129 bugs remain to be dealt with.
No, the problem is in the high number. It should count RC bugs affecting squeeze, but it ignores those which don't affect unstable. I would actually expect this category of bugs to explain most of the difference between the 2 numbers. I think in this case the number per se is the problem, though at this point I wouldn't mind anything coherent.
Given the problems we have, I'll restate my suggestion to go with a single number, and even add the suggestion to remove any number, for example:
<a>A new report</a> on the evolution of release-critical bugs affecting squeeze was published, showing a small improvement.
The main drawback being that this would be the same in approximately all editions.
Reply to: