Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs
Alin Nastac wrote: I find "active devs" metric a useful one.Until a year ago, the number of active devs was linearly rising, but in last year we seem to hit a ceil (175) - either recruiter team is understaffed or our organization reached the maximum number of individuals who can work together without stepping (too much) on each other toes. Anyway, a thing is certain... Gentoo didn't loosed dev's attention. Was it on planet.g.o where i read something about Dunbar's number[1]? A highly interesting subject and it might be possible that the "Monkeyspheres" of Gentoo devs do not overlap sufficiently. There is only one solution to this problem: You need to go out and get drunk together! ;) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
Nathan L. Adams wrote: > Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste > alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to > 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time > saved later. Just think of it as branch prediction. If the case you describe here truly were that common, we'd all be doomed anyway, as that would mean the common case is developers closing bugs without fixing them and users filing bugs but not being interested if they're fixed. > But then again, developer time *is* a very scarce resource. That's why I > fielded the idea that the verification process only be required on > things like Portage. Yes, in a volunteer project such scrutinous QA will certainly only work in a small domain, and is only really feasible for the most critical components. On the other hand, IMHO, these components are already the most thoroughly tested - I'd trust portage with brain surgery any day! As a final note, I have enjoyed this conversation but I'm actually not really qualified to talk about these matters as I'm not a gentoo dev, so I'll refrain from more philosophizing - otherwise somebody might take me up on that brain-surgery thing :) Marco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
Nathan L. Adams wrote: > Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to > *improve* QA. Some thoughts from a humble user: Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time, it is the most scarce resource. To optimize this, the common case must be made fast, and the common case is that the bug has been truly fixed when it has been closed. The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a perfect position to test the fix. You can't have the people (developers) who are already the busiest spend significant time recreating bugs and testing the fix, just to find out that, yes indeed, it has been fixed. Sincerely, Marco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
