2010/1/11 Graham Binns <[email protected]>: > Writing this as I'm dashing out the door (so I'll respond to the rest > of your mail later). The algorithm and the reasoning behind it is now > on the BugHeat page (I meant to put it there on Friday and didn't; > sorry).
Thanks, that helps. istm that if you want hotness to be an overall measure of how much things matter, you might want importance to be included too, but not in such a way that it overrides others. I guess experience will tell. Perhaps that would be a good replacement for specially handling bug-control or team members, since only special teams can set importance. In your table you could try critical +1000 high +500 wishlist -300 istm that if Launchpad counted subscribed/affected users across duplicates correctly (for which there is a bug) then you might not need to care much about duplicates. In the trivial common case of there being N duplicates each reported by one user who is marked subscribed/affected, the math would come out just the same. many bugs have lots of pointless bulk subscribers. presumably these don't count? It looks like the current list includes recency of updates - is that just because it is the secondary sort key? Perhaps the scaling factors would be clearer with some worked examples: known critical, no dupes or affected users - higher recently reported, not yet triaged, 10 affected users - pretty high ... I realize a lot of discussion has already gone. -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
