On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Graham Binns <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/1/14 Tom Berger <[email protected]>: >>> We may very likely factor in status/importance >> >> I think that the current algorithm looks very good, and can definitely >> be improved later on by bringing in other metadata. However, I'm >> pretty sure that we should never bring importance in, since one of the >> use cases we anticipate is for people to use hotness as a way to >> decide how to set importance. If that's really the case then making >> importance part of the calculation will be meaningless, and will >> create a feedback loop that might make the output less reliable. >> > > I thoroughly agree. >
I was being a bit general in my statement and not entirely clear about what I was thinking. I was thinking that importance would factor into helping with the problem that Martin A. mentioned, i.e. controlling the hot list as a priority queue. So, yes, I agree the heat value shouldn't change based on setting importance, but perhaps there's some way we could use it in the display of the list of hot bugs. So given a set of 10 equally hot bugs, "Low" bugs would sort lower. Yes, this isn't really anything to do with calculating heat, but in practical terms, it does affect how people view and think about the heat number. Cheers, deryck -- Deryck Hodge https://launchpad.net/~deryck http://www.devurandom.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
