launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:52 PM, William Grant
<william.grant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/09/11 21:49, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
>> On 2011-09-20 18:04, Stuart Bishop wrote:
>>
>>> This ties into our 256+ critical bugs too. I'd really like to see our
>>> high bugs downgraded to medium and our critical bugs downgraded to
>>> high. This way we can use critical for the stuff that genuinely has to
>>> be fixed right now possibly late at night and on weekends, unlike the
>>> bulk of our existing critical bugs which we hope to deal with in the
>>> next 6 months. 6 months away doesn't match most peoples definition of
>>> critical...
>>
>> I agree.  We can't keep creating more Critical bugs than we can handle,
>
> Or perhaps we can't keep handling fewer Critical bugs than we are creating?

There was a formula from an agile seminar I can never remember where
you take the average time to fix bugs, rate of incoming bugs and end
up with a timeframe. Any bugs hanging around longer than this
timeframe are WONTFIX by definition, because the incoming rate of more
important bugs multiplied by your velocity means you will never get
around to it. So when a bug gets into that list it means one of a) Its
been badly prioritized and you dropped it on the floor b) It will only
be fixed by accident, such as becoming irrelevant or c) You're
screwed.

Or something like that. Anyone remember? I think my notes are buried
in a box somewhere (Damn paper notes! How last millennium!)


-- 
Stuart Bishop <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.stuartbishop.net/