Analysis of 10 years of bugzilla.mozilla.org
bryce at canonical.com
Tue Jan 26 20:47:47 GMT 2010
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:36:15AM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz at canonical.com> writes:
> >I haven't watched the video, but scanned over the slides and found them
> I agree -- that slide deck is very comprehensible. Actually, I found it
> easier to digest than the video presentation. Here are the slides:
> Most interesting graph: correlation between the level of experience of
> bug submitter and tendency of that bug to get fixed.
I found the "Time to verify software defect" graph fascinating. It
shows that having more than 30 people commenting on a bug adds little to
getting the bug verified unless the developer *really* groks the
codebase inside and out, and can actually hinder the verification time.
And having more than 75 commenters on a bug always makes the bug harder
These findings correlate with my own experience. Having a few people
participate on a bug report can be quite helpful, but past a certain
threshold it turns into noise.
I also like the "Likelihood Bug Fix: X%" thing.
> >Is anyone up for doing (or arranging) a similar analysis of Ubuntu bugs?
> I'm planning to do something similar, but to do it right -- usefully --
> will be non-trivial, so it's going to be after my current coding
> rotation on the Launchpad Bugs Team, which ends in a couple of months.
> (This rotation is suggesting various better ways to measure anyway.)
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
More information about the ubuntu-devel