|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Well, given that last 5 builds failed it is likely that the next build will fail as well. And if the time for a failed and successful build differs dramatically, estimating using successful builds is very likely to be incorrect.
To me it makes sense to take the probability the next build will succeed into account as well as exclude builds interrupted by user.
I believe build times forms clusters (as you say generally two for successful and failed builds). Taking build times from both cluster and calculating arithmetical average is doomed to be wrong. I would prefer reading constant number of builds, finding largest cluster and (since we have to deliver single value) return an average of such build times.