Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:22:14 -0500 as excerpted: > On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 20:54:45 Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:00:02 +0200 (EET) Alex Alexander wrote: >> > Our bug queue has 118 bugs! >> >> I am starting to wonder if this is helping. It looks like everyone now >> attempts to keep it <100 on a daily basis, but not to far <100, which >> means a lot of old, difficult, nasty bug reports are left unattended. >> Still, I got it down to about two dozen now. > > i think people will aim for whatever arbitrary limit is picked. so > raising it to say 200 wont help either.
Agreed. Which begs the question[1], why not take the opportunity to lower it? The notices have been demonstrated to be able to keep it to ~100 bugs, but IIRC that was a rather arbitrarily picked number, according to the previous discussion thread. Now that the number is/was ~24, what about lowering that to say 50 before it hits that, and then by say one a day to some number deemed not to let bugs languish, probably not lower than 2-3 average days worth, however, given the warning period of once per day. (I've no idea what the filings per day is, 50 obviously assumes <25.) If the script could be improved to give the date and bug number (maybe with title/summary?) of the oldest unassigned one as well, and trigger a warning if it were more than, say, three days old, as well as by queue length, that might be nice, too. However I recognize that's easy to say given I'm not coding it. --- [1] Yeah, I know. I'm using the term in the rhetorical personification sense, not the historical/legal sense. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
