From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23231 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 15:51:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23217 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 15:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 15:51:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ED02E96; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:55:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E53A90B.4010209@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:51:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process References: <75A2B7E2-440D-11D7-8FE0-000393575BCC@dberlin.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 > A few days ago, I actually ran statistics on how long it takes for a patch to get first review in gcc vs gdb over the past year, and for gcc, it's 2.some odd days. Believe it or not, for gdb, it was well over two weeks. > That's not good. Ah, statistics. Ah metrics. Given most outliers are now in the bug database can you perhaphs break it down by area and, hopefully, more usefuly, look at each area's change rate. It is the change/progress that is important, not the absolute numbers. A lack of change that is of concern. For instance, I worry about build and remote problems. The former definitly makes progress, the latter less so :-( Andrew PS: And metrics are made to be abused. As soon as people know the metric that they are being measured by, the quickly addapt their behavour to make that specific metric look better.