Holger Levsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Andreas, > > On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > One suggestion though: currently you calculated the bugginess of a > > > metapackage by the number of bugs their depnds have. I'd suggest to > > > divide that by the number of packages that metapackage depends on :-) > > to regard. Please elaborate (perhaps in private / German?). > > http://blends.alioth.debian.org/edu/bugs/common.html states that dependend > packages have "1 critical, 2 serious, 122 important, 528 normal, 175 minor, > 511 wishlist" bugs, but it does neither display or include into the metric > the number of dependent packages. > > And "1 critical, 2 serious, 122 important, 528 normal, 175 minor, 511 > wishlist" bugs are a lot for 2 dependent packages, but not for 100 dependent > packages. So the metric shown is not really so useful.
It provides an answer to the question "Which metapackage needs most help". Normalising by the number of packages would, I agree, give a fairer assesment of the relative bugginess of the metapackages. I think there is merit in both scores. Chris PS There is also scope for adjusting the relative "badness" of each severity. I proposed an potential alternative scoring system last year - but haven't had the time to try it out yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
