On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 16:44 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> It is good to recognize the impact of this, however, I would suggest
> that if having open changes that are not "actively being worked" is a
> problem for statistics,

I don't think it's a problem for the statistics per se. The reports are
only a tool to analyze complex phenomenons and translate them into
manageable items. In fact, we keep adding more stats as we go because
every chart and table leaves us with more questions.

>  let's change the statistics calculation.  Please do not abandon the
> work of contributors to improve the appearance of
> these metrics.  Instead, simply decide what criteria you think should
> apply and exclude those changes from your calculations.

I'm currently thinking that it would be informative to plot the
distribution of the efficiency metrics, instead of simply come up with a
filter to ignore long standing changes with slow/null activity over some
arbitrary amount of time. I think it would be more interesting to see
how many 'inactive' vs 'active' there are at a given time.

In any case, since Sean said that nova (and other projects) already
remove unmergeable changesets regularly, I think the data are already
"clean enough" to give us food for thoughts.

Why owners seem to be getting slower and slower to provide new patches,
despite the fact that the number of patches per changeset is fairly
stable? I'll look into the data more carefully with Daniel Izquierdo as
I think there are huge outliers skewing the data (the diff between
median and average is huge).


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to