Re: 2 different
Hannes Mayer <debiandude <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I have followed the "Release-critical bugs status" for almost a year now:
> http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
>
> But in the past few days I noted that the bug counts on the "All" page
> http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/debian/all.html
> are different than on the main page.
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=none&ignhinted=on
&ignclaimed=on&ignpending=on&igncontrib=on&ignnonfree=on&new=14
none have the same number.
I don't care much because they all are heading towards zero those days.
The latter may help you find out as you can filter everything. I guess some
don't count pseudo packages like "general" , those with patches, tagged woody
only or orphaned package "bug".
What matter for me is the trend at which bugs bugs are fixed. Most packages are
fixed quickly nowadays.
Not to flame but mozilla, evolution#, and the general or base packages make me
wonder why the hell most of their bug reports did not deserve any feedback from
their maintenair. They seems to only update when upstream provide a new release.
I have nothing to say about the maintenair, because maintenaining so much and
so big packages by only one maintenair make me wonder.
Mozilla is a platform not only a browser and evolution is/was full a bugs. Each
one deserve a full team, that s my point of view.
Bind9 is another one that make me wonder if sarge will be stable enough for
servers. But gnome pdf viewer is stable lol ...
I am pretty interested in Important/Grave bug statistics. For most RC the
remaining bugs are mostly packages waiting in the new queue, non x86 platforms
FTBS and packages which maintenair seems missing in action for monthes.
Ciao
Alban
Reply to: