Thanks Federico for your answer.
What's important is that we are aware that the overall "classic" metrics
are decreasing in the time I've been doing a measured monitoring, I can
continue this for a few more months and provide some graphs to show the
trend. What I am not entirely sure is if we still want to consider these
metrics something important in the age of AI agent development. I'd be
happy to read some opinions about this point.

Regards,
Pasquale.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 11:21 AM Federico Mariani <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Pasquale,
>
> I do find these monthly metrics useful, but to be honest, this is how I
> react to every email: I open the summary on sonarcloud and think
> "*Interesting,
> soon or later I'll look into the security issues, blockers, and refactor to
> reduce duplications*" but then a butterfly pass by, I lose focus, and I
> start working on something else.
>
> Who knows, soon or later I might actually fix some of the issues
> Federico
>
> Il giorno gio 1 ott 2026 alle ore 10:45 Pasquale Congiusti <
> [email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> > Hi Camel team,
> > here a monthly report for the major metrics in September 2026 [1]:
> >
> > Security issues: 17 (grade E)
> > Reliability issues: 1.2K (661 blockers) (grade E)
> > Maintainability issues: 29K (57 blockers, 8.2 K high) (grade A)
> > Coverage: 56,1%
> > Duplications: 6,5 %
> >
> > Last month it was:
> >
> > Security issues: 8 (grade E)
> > Reliability issues: 929 (201 blockers) (grade E)
> > Maintainability issues: 27K (47 blockers, 7.4 K high) (grade A)
> > Coverage: 55,4%
> > Duplications: 6,8 %
> >
> > We can see a big jump in the number of new issues introduced during last
> > month. I am not sure if this report is really useful for somebody or
> > a feedback to improve the metrics reported. If it's not, I can stop
> > providing it and we can just check the sonar analysis when we are
> > interested in those metrics.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pasquale.
> >
> > [1] https://sonarcloud.io/summary/overall?id=apache_camel&branch=main
> >
>

Reply via email to