Packages to investigate

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement]

On 11/22/2010 10:22 PM, Brian Murray wrote:
> As we all know there are a lot of packages and bugs to keep track of in
> Ubuntu.  One idea that occurred to me recently, to help identify
> packages in need of triage, was to calculate an average bug heat for the
> particular package.  I've made a first pass at this using all the
> packages in the ubuntu-desktop package set.  Here are the top 10
> packages:
> 
> usb-modeswitch-data - median: 764, mode: 1448
> language-pack-gnome-fa-base - median: 408, mode: 408
> language-pack-gnome-pt - median: 318, mode: 318
> couchdb-glib - median: 210, mode: 210
> netbook-meta - median: 145, mode: 408
> pyopenssl - median: 136, mode: 259
> shotwell - median: 124, mode: 6
> appmenu-gtk - median: 122, mode: 408
> gnome-python-extras - median: 114, mode: 3
> telepathy-gabble - median: 104, mode: 49
> 
> As I ran this last Friday there might be some variance in the numbers.
> I'm curious whether or not you think the bug reports for these packages
> really need reviewing.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
Thanks Brian. This is really interesting. If we apply this calculation
to the packages installed by default in Natty, the top 10 looks like:
shotwell - median: 189
empathy - median: 91
gcalctool - median: 86
gbrainy - median: 86
gwibber - median: 81
simple-scan - median: 76
software-center - median: 68
pitivi - median: 68
transmission - median: 60
gnome-bluetooth - median: 59

Compared to the list based on the number of bugs:
evolution
firefox
gdmsetup
nautilus
nm-connection-editor
ooffice
software-center
totem
update-manager

So I can not say that this is the list that I had in mind, but the
result is expected.
When we build the list based on volume of bugs, we get the most used
applications. But when we use the bug heat we get the applications with
fewer bugs but which are in need of triage (I'm not saying that the
applications with a large number of bugs don't need triage)

The list needs a closer look though. For instance:
- shotwell is in 1rst position, but when I look at the reports, there
are 2 bugs with a heat of 3491, and I don't see anything specific that
could explain such a value. Is it the weight of untriaged report being a
bit too important or something else ? It doesn't seem to match the bug
heat algorithm.
- gbrainy, I was surprised to find a game in the list. In fact, there is
a very limited number of bugs filed against this package and some of
them with high heat. I've triaged the report with the highest heat
(>300) and it fell to a heat of 12. So the next run of your script
should move it lower into the list.
- gcalctool, same thing, the first bug had a heat of 237, and after
asking for more information it fell to 8.

So, yes, this is useful to help us to direct our testing and triaging
effort. But the calculation of the bug heat needs to be clarified.
Maybe this could be added to the 'Opportunities' list in harvest ?

-- 
Jean-Baptiste
irc: jibel