[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug statistics
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Bug statistics |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:53:22 +0300 |
> From: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>
> Cc: Tassilo Horn <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:31:56 -0400
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >This is also far from ideal. Unless you have a lot of time on your
> >hands, going through the bugs and trying to figure out if they are the
> >same as yours is a nuisance. This should be a job of some program
> >that runs periodically, or, failing that, of a human (whom we
> >obviously lack).
>
> FWIW, when I've experienced this automated dup-finding in the web
> interface of other bug trackers, it has not been a nuisance -- on the
> contrary it was a great relief, because it helped me know I'm not
> wasting the developers' time with a duplicate report. (The majority of
> the time, it did find a dup of what I was about to file. Sometimes I
> was able to go to that existing report and add useful information.)
>
> For me it became one of those "never go back" features, like sexp motion
> in Emacs.
That would put you into the ``have a lot of time on your hands''
category, in my book. I have maybe 10 hours a week to work on Emacs.
I cannot invest any significant portion of that time on reading the
descriptions of bugs, without adversely affecting my productivity,
which is too low as it is.
Re: Bug statistics, Karl Fogel, 2010/06/24