Subject: Re: Counting bugs...
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 16:02:41 CST
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:44:39PM +0100, Jesper Skov wrote:
>
> I've made some changes to the queries I run so open bugs with severity
> 'enhancement' are not included in the stats (hence today's reduction).
>
>
> I think we should consider some scheme to mark open bugs in a way so
> it's clear that they will be dealt with later. Like the mozilla team
> put a keyword in each bug telling when it's scheduled to be
> fixed.
>
> This is what triaging is all about. Some bugs are simply not possible
> to fix for a given release because they rely on some non-trivial
> rewrite of parts of the code. Those should be marked in a way so they
> don't mess up the statistics.
>
> Anybody like the idea of adding [v0.9], [v1.0], [v1.1], etc to the
> title of bugs? Alternatively, update BugZilla to a newer
> version. What's the chance of that being possible?
Upgrading bugzilla is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, I've never
adminned a bugzilla system before, and thus am not entirely sure what
I would need to do. Does it just involve replacing the current
contents of the bugzilla directory (which is just a bunch of perl
scripts) with the newest version from Mozilla CVS? Do I have to
change the MySQL setup (eeek)?
Anyone dealt with this before?
And thanks jesper for the stats.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 12 2001 - 16:01:34 CST