Re: To Understand and Improve GNOME Bug Workflow

[Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net>]

On Sat, 2015-11-14 at 00:20 +0800, shin zhu wrote:
> We designed a tool which visualizes historical issue tracking
> (Bugzilla) data
> to support analysis of issue status workflow, such as identification of different
> workflows in the past and evaluation of their effectiveness.
>
> For more information about the tool, please visit https://passion-lab.org/pee.php.
> To download and install the tool, please refer to https://passion-lab.org/subtopic/pee_sbsg.php.
> A quick start guide is attached in this email,
> and here is an online demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXitsaDFtzU.
>
> We invite you to have a look at the tool, have a try and give your comments or
> reviews to help us to evaluate and improve it.
> For example, consider the following questions:
> does it make it easier to look at the historical issue workflow?
> do you discover something that you have not been aware of before?
> do you come up with some ideas about the issue maintenance or other effort
> related to issues.

The video is interesting, thank you for sharing it!

The workflow change in 2007 to bypass NEEDINFO was discussed here:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-bugsquad/2007-April/thread.html
...and it's good to see that it really saved triagers some time.

The large number of incoming bug reports in late 2006 was also covered
here with a potential explanation:
https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/2006/11/30/bug-flood-2/

Bug-Buddy got deprecated in the late GNOME 2.x days as automated crash
reporting became more and more a distribution-level thing.

I was not always entirely sure what the term "service quality" meant.
It seems to be used like "time to respond"?

Cheers,
andre
-- 
Andre Klapper  |  ak-47 gmx net
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/