Analysis of 10 years of bugzilla.mozilla.org

[Bryce Harrington]

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
> >interesting:
> >http://commonspace.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/learning-from-10-yrs-of-bugzilla-data/
> >
> I agree -- that slide deck is very comprehensible.  Actually, I found it
> easier to digest than the video presentation.  Here are the slides:
>   http://commonspace.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mozilla-toronto-office-2010-ms2.pdf
> 
> 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
to verify.

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.)
> 
> -K
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel