This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:55:55 -0500
- Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process
- References: <75A2B7E2-440D-11D7-8FE0-000393575BCC@dberlin.org>
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
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 :-(
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.