For some reason I got to thinking about the "Friend of Gump" rating again
today. (Probably 'cos I am curious to know how centipede would build on full
gump, but know it hasn't built in a week or many more 'cos of dependent
failures). As product get higher up the stack they build less, and that
limits gumps effectiveness at keeping community unity. As such, I think FOG
is a very important statistic.
I am sure there are some interesting statistics (total # of sub-projects a
project depends upon, total # of project dependent upon this) I wonder if
there is a value in the following simple approach.
Gump could store three counters for each project (1) successful builds [S]
(2) unsuccessful builds [U] (2) missing dependency [D]. I wonder if the "FOG
factor" ought be:
[S] / [U] + [D].
I thought about weighting [U] or [D], so as not to penalise a project for
it's dependencies, but the end result is the same. Build on quicksand and
you'll sink, however stable your are.
If gump were to store each of these (in one file or three) and increment
them (as appropriate) each time it ran, and present them in a simple HTML
table (perhaps even the build status main table on index.html) it'd allow
folks to know (1) age [total builds] (2) reliability to build on top of.
Not a perfect measure, but might be informative...
regards
Adam
--
<http://www.try.sybase.com>
Experience Sybase Technology ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
