From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: [RFC] Use cases for 'git statistics' Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:21:43 +0200 Message-ID: <482C2AD7.3070808@op5.se> References: <200805131507.04912.jnareb@gmail.com> <200805142234.54600.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 15 14:22:38 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JwcTl-0000Cj-EA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 14:22:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753375AbYEOMVr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 08:21:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753313AbYEOMVr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 08:21:47 -0400 Received: from mail.op5.se ([193.201.96.20]:33975 "EHLO mail.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753117AbYEOMVq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 08:21:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA491B80087; Thu, 15 May 2008 14:18:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.op5.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.op5.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xULDvjPpdUGW; Thu, 15 May 2008 14:18:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from clix.int.op5.se (unknown [192.168.1.27]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D46F1B80084; Thu, 15 May 2008 14:18:31 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) In-Reply-To: <200805142234.54600.jnareb@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > [on helping maintainer decide how closely patch should be examined] > >>> Weighting different statistics, bayesian hypotesis/filtering, expert >>> system, machine learning... I guess that would be quite a work to do >>> it well. Probably would require to calculate and adjust scoring of code >>> (difficulity) and authors (skill), and matching them... >>> >>> This is certainly in the "wishlist" scope. >> Yeah, I think it would go in the 'c' of 'MoSCoW', but it could be very >> useful when done right. > > Errr... what do you mean by 'MoSCoW'? > Must have Should have Could have Won't have It's a priority scheme used in agile development techniques, where developers, customers and users work close together. The customer decides "must have this, or we scrap this project", "should have this, or users will be unhappy", "could have this, many would appreciate it" and "won't have this, it's too expensive to develop" after the devs have estimated the time required to develop the individual components. Agile development is usually used to go under-feature instead of over-budget. Since opensource projects are more driven by whatever passing-by developers happen to find interesting (or annoying) at the moment (nearly as predictable as Brownian motion), agile development techniques are very rarely used successfully to develop oss in anything but extremely tight communities. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231