Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ahh, yes. This is definitely planed. I also wanted to link from > the tasks pages to the bugs pages somehow indicating the bug status > as well. But I wanted to gather some comments on my estimation of > the status first.
I really like the idea - so here are my comments: The biology status doesn't take into account the bugs in the two metapackages it depends on (though how you'd do this, I'm not quite sure). As we've said in private e-mail, absolute bug counts are a measure of help required, whereas quality would best be measured by normalising to number of packages. I think you've made the right choice here. You might also want to ignore, or reduce the weight of bugs under a certain age - perhaps an absolute cut off of 28 days, or perhaps a sliding scale depending upon severity - with critical bugs becoming important immediately. This might not be worth the effort of implementing though. With the exception of Mathematics-dev and biology, all the tasks have the "red" status, and biology would too if it reflected the state of the underlying tasks. I think therfore you're too harsh - and should make it easier to obtain satisfactory status (but if/when we get good at fixing bugs you could change it). I don't think you should give different severities the same score - as you do for critical grave and serious, but I'm not sure I can come up with a better set of numbers than you have. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]