Hi Mark, On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Myriam Schweingruber <myr...@kde.org> wrote: >> Hi Thijs, >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Thijs Heus >> <thijs22nos...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> >> ... >>> My personal opinion, which counts for nothing: BKO can only work with less >>> than 50 bugs or so per component. So be rigurous. BKO can only work as a >>> developers tool if the developers want to use it, if they can have >>> developers discussions within the report (like KWin does, or telepathy). The >>> difference is that Plasma got almost 1400 bug reports in the past half year >>> more than 10% of all of KDE, not even counting the bugs that ended up being >>> redirected to nepomuk, kwin, solid, etc. Currently there are ~800 bugs open, >>> my guess would be about 500 real bugs in a current version. That makes a bug >>> overturn time of only 2 or 3 months. >>> These are impressive numbers, and they show that Plasma is doing OK in >>> beating the bugs, even though plasma may not yet be doing OK in beating BKO. >>> So should we really keep minor bugs that will never be fixed unless as >>> colleteral damage open? Crashes of over a year old, without any duplicate >>> since? I am not saying that these are no bugs, just that they are not >>> helpful reports (anymore), and thus pollute the database. For a highly >>> visible project like plasma, the amount of eyeballs is so high that an >>> accidentally closed bug will be reported again. Currently, this is working >>> against us, but we could make it work a bit more in our favor if we want >>> to. >> >> I agree with most of your points here, but what we really should avoid >> is closing reports without any comments, that should never happen, and >> sadly it did in the past and that is something that only causes anger >> from the bug reporters >> >> As for the current bugs it is crucial that all incoming reports are >> triaged ASAP. We can hold a bugsprint to tackle the remaining >> duplicates and close old ones, but what counts are the bugs that are >> reported now. If we continue to ignore those the b.k.o situation will >> not improve. >> >> I have in mind an initiative similar to what Ubuntu does with their >> "Five a day": https://wiki.ubuntu.com/5-A-Day > > Five bugs a day is a dayjob :p Considering that one bug can often take > a full day (in time) from start to finish. Now i'm only talking about > real bugs that are indeed confimed, hunted down to the part that > causes the bug and making a fix for it. Placing it in reviewboard > takes a few days as well.
Wait, you misunderstood: I talk about triaging, not about fixing :) Triaging one bug is a matter of minutes most of the time. Example: an incoming crash report: check if there is a backtrace, identify the FunctionCall that is most likely to cause the crash, search for duplicates, try to reproduce if no dupes are around. Since 90% of the bug reports at least are probably already reported this only rarely involves reproducing ... > The thing i hate when i look in bugzilla in the plasma bugs is the > amount of ancient old bugs even before the KDE 4 time. I Erm, we had Plasma in KDE3? Also, when did you last have a look at Bugzilla for Plasma bugs? Your comment makes me think of "not since a long time". Regards, Myriam -- Proud member of the Amarok and KDE Community Protect your freedom and join the Fellowship of FSFE: http://www.fsfe.org Please don't send me proprietary file formats, use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300) _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
