Re: reporting change in percentage of open bugs over time per product

[michael chang <thenewme91 gmail com>]

On 7/22/05, Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> The biggest problem we have with traditional reporting of bug counts
> in bugzilla is that inflow and outflow is largely determined by
> qualities other than actual code quality. In traditional bug tracking,
> number of QA people is relatively fixed, number of tests run
> relatively fixed/known, and amount of triage and fixing are also
> known. On the other hand, we have spikes of all sorts- bugday? yup,
> that made us X% less buggy in one day. Yeah. Right.[1] Sun stops
> filing bugs against HEAD? Or suddenly pours more resources into
> triage? Did our fix rate really go up, or the quality of new releases
> really go down, if those things happen? not really. So we have to
> figure out some way to control for those things.

If I read this right, this basically says that maybe there should be a
way for e.g. a bug that is triaged as a duplicate or something to not
count as a "fixed" but thereby making it look like many bugs were
fixed, but at the same time for it not to count as "unfixed" (thereby
making it look like nothing happened).

Is there a way to generate statistics so that triaged bugs don't count
as "fixed" bugs per se?  Or something like that, e.g. bugs marked as
duplicates don't indicate "fixed" bugs, or something?  [So the number
of fixed bugs is compared to the number of open bugs -- since the
triaged/dups are not open bugs, the fixed bugs will still be positive,
but not seemingly inflated.]

This is the way I see it, and my apologies if my interpretation is nonsense.

-- 
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.