Interesting idea. I'd be interested in a list of the negative aspects of this, that you came up w/. My personal feeling is against it, as it changes the focus people have; the goal people have changes from fixing bugs, to simply closing them in the BTS. Sometimes, it's good to keep bugs open in the BTS (tagged w/ wontfix, documenting a problem that other people may bring up; or tagged w/ unreproducable, as another person may stumble across the bug, and find the original bug report useful in finding a way to reproduce; or w/ a severity of wishlist, that perhaps the current maintainer may not want to deal w/, but the next maintainer may; etc). Closing bugs does not necessarily mean fixing them.
Will only certain types of bugs count? What happens when a NMU closes 1 bug, but adds 10 others? If this doesn't improve the overall quality of debian, there's not much point.. On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:45:18AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > [Obey M-F-T or die] > > Here's the basic idea: turn bug-fixing into a game (a counterbalance > to the huge quantities of time which moon-buggy and frozen-bubble have > taken away from Debian development). > [details] > > [Kudos to Richard Braakman for coming up with the idea and helping > sketch out most of the details] > > -- > .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield > : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, > `. `' | Imperial College, > `- -><- | London, UK -- Buying a Unix machine guarantees you a descent into Hell. It starts when you plug the computer in and it won't boot. Yes, they really did sell you a $10,000 computer with an unformatted disk drive. -- Philip Greenspun