Re: Re: SmartEiffel shortcomings?

In <[email protected]>, Mike Meyer <[email protected]> typed:
> In <OFCEEEFA53.BB898FAC-ONC125700D.0049B433-C125700D.004CDF35@mpsa.com>, [email protected] typed:
> > Mike Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, I queried your smartzilla bugs (reporter: mwm) The 
> > results are:
> >         33 bugs, out of which
> >                 23 (70%) are FIXED
> >                 3 are INVALID, with an explanation
> 
> One "explanation" is "this is just a closed conversation". That's not
> an explanation - that's just a comment.
> 
> >                 2 are DUPLICATE which is an explanation by itself
> >                 1 is WONTFIX, with a clear explanation
> >                 3 are UNCONFIRMED
> >                 1 is NEW
> 
> Note that these statistics include simple bug reports as well as
> submitted code, so your statistics are out of whack for what I talked
> about.

Another thing that will  warp your statistics that I forgot: I
submitted patches for bugs reported by other people. Those were
submitted on the original bug report page. Checking just for bugs I
reported will miss all of those.

But the details aren't that important. The important thing is that I,
as someone who was submitting patches the SE team found acceptable,
found the process so frustrating that I gave up on it.

I never saw a bug that someone else had uploaded a patch for, so I
suspect you don't have a lot of people doing what I was doing - which
is a bad thing. For other projects, tackling the bugs database is the
*recommended* way to start contributing to the project.

	<mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <[email protected]>		http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.