[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug statistics

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Bug statistics
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:53:22 +0300

> From: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>
> Cc: Tassilo Horn <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:31:56 -0400
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >This is also far from ideal.  Unless you have a lot of time on your
> >hands, going through the bugs and trying to figure out if they are the
> >same as yours is a nuisance.  This should be a job of some program
> >that runs periodically, or, failing that, of a human (whom we
> >obviously lack).
> FWIW, when I've experienced this automated dup-finding in the web
> interface of other bug trackers, it has not been a nuisance -- on the
> contrary it was a great relief, because it helped me know I'm not
> wasting the developers' time with a duplicate report.  (The majority of
> the time, it did find a dup of what I was about to file.  Sometimes I
> was able to go to that existing report and add useful information.)
> For me it became one of those "never go back" features, like sexp motion
> in Emacs.

That would put you into the ``have a lot of time on your hands''
category, in my book.  I have maybe 10 hours a week to work on Emacs.
I cannot invest any significant portion of that time on reading the
descriptions of bugs, without adversely affecting my productivity,
which is too low as it is.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]