launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Martin Pool <mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2010/1/12 Deryck Hodge <deryck.hodge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>

Sorry I haven't replied to this thread yet, I've been hip-deep in
sprint. I just saw this email & wanted to reply.

>>> How about a survey, on the lp blog, asking people if the hot bugs list
>>> works for them?

We know it's not useful. Let's do this when we have something worth
asking about.

>>
>> Perhaps we should do something like this.  The current "hot bugs" is
>> just recently touched bugs.  But if people find this useful, we should
>> rename it appropriately and keep it.  I really hadn't considered that
>> people like the page as it is now, since I consider it a broken
>> implementation.
>>

Me too. No need to keep last touched, at least not for now.

...
> I realized last night that your algorithm in
> <https://dev.launchpad.net/Bugs/BugHeat> is really pretty close to
> just being sort-by-affected-users with priority given to private and
> security bugs.  It may be reasonable to assume that projects already
> treat security bugs as important, at least to the extent of triaging
> them first.  So perhaps no more is needed here than finishing the
> affects-count bugs?
>

Fixing affects counts ideas would be a good thing, but how about we
try this with something really close to what Ubuntu are actually using
now in practice?

> It would be useful to understand how this is supposed to mesh with
> importance.  It could be any of:
>
>  * We have a gazillion new/untriaged bugs; I want to triage the
> likely-most-important ones first.  Then once triaged, the importance
> is considered authoritative.  This would likely be skewed by the
> accuracy of dupe-finding across different types of bug.
>

This is, IMO, the primary use-case -- finding important bugs that we
might otherwise miss.

Let's not include importance or status in heat for now.

jml