Thomas Ward:
> I'm going to come out and say that you haven't defined the scope of
> your metrics or your method of assessing the metrics.
Sorry, that's true. You can analyse that in <http://tinyurl.com/kot2k52>.
Thomas Ward:
> Are you certain that's the only bottleneck?
>
> Part of me believes that another potential bottleneck is not
> actually the triage process - rather the hurdle of finding
> individuals willing to maintain the Universe software.
The metric is for Ubuntu as a hole. So it would indicate that if a
project doesn't gather enough development attention it isn't because
people isn't interested in helping Ubuntu, but that particular project.
Michel Memeteau:
Alberto , the solution is not to flag bugs as won't fix when you don't
understand them correctly like this one :
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/1371274
Please don't do that if you are not 100% sure of what you are doing.
This is not related with the topic in this thread. You are welcome to
open a new conversation, but not to hijack ongoing ones.
Thomas Ward:
> Marking bugs as "Won't Fix" or a status that is not relevant in the
> specific case are another bottleneck - triagers who don't fully
> understand what should be done.
Google stated a long time ago that Chrome is Chromium with the
capability of running proprietary code.
Chromium developers closed it upstream because patching that bug is
equal to building a second Chrome browser.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
