On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: ... > > Firstly, the -vast- majority of our bugs are small niggly things; > sometimes fallout from changes we've made, things we intended to do as > part of a project but fell by the wayside - that sort of thing. > > I think that many of those bugs (even though they aren't labelled as > such) would be worth calling tech-debt, and to reduce their occurrence > we need to be much more aggressive about /not/ context switching with > the issue still existing. >
This corresponds well with my own experience. > Secondly, bugs with 'X should Y' are incredibly incredibly incredibly > annoying to revisit years later. They usually don't describe the > observed behaviour, nor why the observed behaviour is a problem; when > they do describe these things they still very rarely include an > analysis of the alternative solutions, merely concluding that a > specific thing makes sense - and years later, our standards, our > tools, and even the problems we are trying to solve have evolved out > of sight. > Yeah, it's even worse when it's your own bug report :) ... > Fourth, an astonishing fraction of our bug database are things that > *cost us time or money*. 6% are tech debt. 2% are tickets affecting > webops. > > This is, to me, confirmation that the current strategy for maintenance > - focusing on root causes, fixing complexity, test coverage, fragility > and duplication in the system is entirely sensible. > +1 TBH, when the maintenance squad idea came into being, I thought that they would be targeting this kind of bug. jml _______________________________________________ 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
