Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
Projects Successes Failures Prereqs No Works Packages 563 01 (0.18%) 00 (0.00%) 00 (0.00%) 512 (90.94%) 50 (8.88%)
Currently the success is showing as:
Overall project success : 9.06%
The 50 at the end are actually packaged *projects* (not simply modules in a Gump sense). See:
http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/packages.html#Packaged+Projects
This suggests that No Work entries may be factored into the calculation of success.
Depends upon if you consider a packaged project a "no work" or not. I chose to include it as work, because even thought it never shows as a success (Gump doesn't build it) it can count as a failure (if incorrectly installed/missing). As such 'overal success' is projects plus sucessfully installed packged projects.
OK - I understand - but I disagree. Packaging IMO should be factored into an overhead of a real project build. That was - when I look at gump info if its 50% then I know that half of Apache build successfully. I.e. no micro economic adjustments required.
From a total of 563 projects, 512 were counted as no-work - leaving a total of 51 projects.
Yup, the one done (to that point) plus those 50 packaged projects.
But the one project is not associated with the 50 packages (which I think reinforces the notion that packaging is a overhead attributed to a particular project).
51/563 = 0.091
Or 0.0906 (to give 9.06%).
Woops - yes.
But looking at the other numbers, 50 of these remaining projects are modules. So in fact the the success ratio calculation is being skewed by the inclusion of modules.
Hey, we are cutting the Gumpmeisters some slack for correctly installing the
package (and keeping them maintained).
:-)
I'm not trying to skew, so I'll adjust if folks feel strongly, but this seems the right calculation to me.
Keep in mind that I'm they guy that assumed that an increase in fog was a bad thing!
But aside from that - yep - something is not right here. IMO a failed package due to a definition error deserves a gump message but it should count in the overall (or partial) success factor. But take this just as a comment from casual observation who has not contributing a single character to the gump codebase!
Thanks for looking closely at the numbers. :-)
No problem.
Cheers, Steve.
regards,
Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
|---------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org | |---------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
