[gentoo-dev] Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

[Duncan]

Tom Wijsman posted on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:10:53 +0100 as excerpted:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:48 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:58:22 +0100 as excerpted:
>>
>> > Can we do something about our growing queue when fixing is
>> > insufficient?
>> >
>> > [snip privileged link, see pngs links below]
>> >
>> > PS: As a bonus, here's a nice view of our stabilization queue over
>> > time:
>> >
>> > [another]
>> >
>> > Notice how the graph goes down near the dates the threads were made;
>> > although, if you would draw an average it would appear to be growing.
>>
>> Both those links give me this:
>>
>> Sorry, you aren't a member of the 'editbugs' group, and so you are not
>> authorized to use the "New Charts" feature.
>>
>> =:^(
>>
>>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/bgo-all-open-bugs.png
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/bgo-all-open-key-and-stable.png
>
> Hmm, I think that certain usage of it can cause quite a server load;
> and that because of that this is in place, perhaps even by default.

Very likely.  Thanks for the pngs. =:^)

It's worth noting specifically for those not too detail observant that 
the dates graphed are much different.

The bgo-all-open-bugs graph is from late 2003 to the present, just over a 
decade, and shows a general increase in open bugs from 4000 (the graph's 
y-axis zero-point) in late 2003, to 20K today, with a dip in 2006 and 
2007.

The bgo-all-open-key-and-stable graph is over a much shorter period, 
April 2011 to today so not quite three years, with the beginning date 
presumably an upgrade from an earlier bugzilla version without the 
necessary tracking data, or possibly introduction of the keywords 
tracked.  It starts at zero in April 2011 and rises quickly to ~400 bugs 
in late November of that year (2011), which a quick eyeballing suggests 
as the earliest point at which it /might/ be accurate, since previous to 
that most bugs were presumably without the necessary tracking data.  The 
peak is a couple months later, 1200 bugs, in January 2012.  Presumably 
it's reasonably accurate by then at the latest.  The current number would 
appear to be ~675.

Which leaves us basically two years of accurate tracking data on the key-
and-stable graph.  And barring the intro period before Nov 2011 when it 
clearly couldn't have been accurate yet, what jumps out at me is that 
unlike the all-open-bugs graph (which grew from just over 18K to peak at 
just over 20K and then drop down very slightly to perhaps 19,950 today, 
thus growing by nearly 2000 bugs in two years, about a thousand a year, a 
bit slower than the ~1600/year average over the decade), the keyword-and-
stable graph is a lot more volatile with a lot of vertical lines of ~300 
bugs (a quarter of the graph height of 1200 bugs!) at a time, but...

... actually seems rather stable at a near 600 bug center-graph average!

So while we clearly have a long-term trend of +1600 open bugs per year 
overall over the last decade and somewhat under that, +1000 each the last 
couple years, keyword/stablizations bugs are far more volatile over the 
shorter two-year period we can assume we have reasonably accurate data 
for, but to the extent a trend can be seen at all in the very noisy data 
over the short two-year period, it appears pretty flat-lined. If 
anything, the trend over the first year was down while the trend over the 
second has been up, but given the size of the verticals and the fact that 
our current ~675 is just over half the 1200 peak, there's really just not 
enough data yet to see a clear trend, and any trend that might be seen 
could just as easily be interpreter's bias.

That's a bit surprising given the topic of this thread.  I'd have 
expected at least /some/ upward trend.  Tho honestly, two years simply 
isn't enough history to tell, given the quarter-graph verticals.

Now what /might/ be interesting is a similar graph of keyword/stable bugs 
open say 90+ days.  I'd say 180+ too, but at two years of reliable data, 
that'd only give us a year and a half of 180+ to work with, 3X the 180 
day, which is very likely simply EINSUFFICIENTDATA.

Meanwhile, any idea what the explanation is for the drop in the all-open-
bugs graph in 2006 and 2007?  The only thing that comes to mind here is 
that it might be the effect of tree-cleaners getting to work?  Does that 
match their timing and work?  If so, WOW! =:^)  But then what happened in 
2008 that lead to a 4K increase in open bugs in one year? =:^(

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman