Thanks, that's really interesting to see. Incidentally to get the editable form (again if you are at canonical.com) you must actually use <https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1GNgTwk62WzG9oIN91bTZI4fNwfylYiSdXC56y9i_riQ/edit?hl=en_US> otherwise you are redirected to a new empty document.
> 28% of bugs would have been prevented by proper testing I guess this is almost guaranteed to be true for bugs that aren't deployment, load, etc related, that you could possibly have written a test to catch them. I am interested in what would count as 'proper', ie the spectrum between - it wasn't tested at all, through to - some cases were tested but others weren't and they failed, to - in theory you could have written a test but it would have required unusual foresight Martin On 22 October 2011 09:01, Francis J. Lacoste <francis.laco...@canonical.com> wrote: > Hello launchpadders, > > As most of you are aware, I've been working on an analysis of our new > critical bugs for a while now. (Seems like I started this at the end of > August.) Anyway, I'm done collecting all the data and I have a draft > analysis. > > I'm solliciting review of both the collected data, as well as the > analysis and recommendations. > > The analysis is in a Google document, you can edit and leave comments in it. > > https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1GNgTwk62WzG9oIN91bTZI4fNwfylYiSdXC56y9i_riQ > > The document is only accessible to Canonical employees, but there is a > published version of the document available at > > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1GNgTwk62WzG9oIN91bTZI4fNwfylYiSdXC56y9i_riQ > > You won't be able to comment inline there, but feel free to follow-up on > the list. > > The actual data (in a spreadsheet) is linked from the analysis document. > > I'm joining a PDF version of the document, in case, anyone want to read > it offline. > > tl;dr > > * Most of the new bugs (68%) are actually legacy issues lurking in our > code base. > * Performance and spotty test coverage represents together more than 50% > of the cause of our new bugs. We should refocus maintenance on tackling > performance problems, that's what is going to bring us the most bang for > the bucks (even though it's not cheap). > * As a team, we should increase our awareness of testing techniques and > testing coverage. Always do TDD, maybe investigate ATDD to increase the > coverage and documentation our the business rules we should be supporting. > * We also need to pay more attention to how code is deployed, it's now > very usual for scripts to be interrupted, and for the new and ancient > version of the code to operate in parallel. > > -- > Francis J. Lacoste > francis.laco...@canonical.com > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev > Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
