Subject: Re: PRs should first have submitted status rather than open
To: Petri Koistinen <email@example.com>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/24/2001 20:32:05
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:06:20AM +0300, Petri Koistinen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> > Manuel Bouyer writes:
> > >So maybe we should separate 'open' in 2 fields: open with default responsible,
> > >and open but with responsible changed.
> > no, no, no, please leave it as it is or it'll get totally confusing...
> No, I am not trying to make GNATS more confusing that it already is. I
> would like a see system just like now, but there should be one more status
> before open. It would be called as submitted, because there are so many
> "open" PRs that haven't been touched at all. This would also help
> developers on placing their powers on one place at time. Statistics would
> also given better idea how bug solving is progressing.
> What do you think about this GNATS bug database summary:
> (Automatically generated on 24 May 2001 06:46:48 GMT)
> State Count
> open 1917
> analyzed 134
> feedback 116
> suspended 33
> closed 10405
> Amount of closed PRs is OK, there is nothing wrong. But compare open PRs
> with other states. There is 283 PRs in analyzed, feedback and suspended
> state. There is total of 2200 bugs which are not closed, and amount of
> these open PRs is 87,1% and this is too high. Analyzed is 6,1%, feedback
> 5,3% and suspended 1,5%. Dividing current open status to "submitted" and
> "open" states would change this is inbalance.
Did you check how many PRs in open state have a different responsible than
the default one ?
I think this would just move most open PRs to submitted, that's all. :(
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr