| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Hello launchpadders, As most of you are aware, I've been working on an analysis of our new critical bugs for a while now. (Seems like I started this at the end of August.) Anyway, I'm done collecting all the data and I have a draft analysis. I'm solliciting review of both the collected data, as well as the analysis and recommendations. The analysis is in a Google document, you can edit and leave comments in it. https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1GNgTwk62WzG9oIN91bTZI4fNwfylYiSdXC56y9i_riQ The document is only accessible to Canonical employees, but there is a published version of the document available at https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1GNgTwk62WzG9oIN91bTZI4fNwfylYiSdXC56y9i_riQ You won't be able to comment inline there, but feel free to follow-up on the list. The actual data (in a spreadsheet) is linked from the analysis document. I'm joining a PDF version of the document, in case, anyone want to read it offline. tl;dr * Most of the new bugs (68%) are actually legacy issues lurking in our code base. * Performance and spotty test coverage represents together more than 50% of the cause of our new bugs. We should refocus maintenance on tackling performance problems, that's what is going to bring us the most bang for the bucks (even though it's not cheap). * As a team, we should increase our awareness of testing techniques and testing coverage. Always do TDD, maybe investigate ATDD to increase the coverage and documentation our the business rules we should be supporting. * We also need to pay more attention to how code is deployed, it's now very usual for scripts to be interrupted, and for the new and ancient version of the code to operate in parallel. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
Launchpad FY2011 Q1 & Q2 Critical Bugs Analysis.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
