Re: [tools-pmc] Memory Analyzer 1.4.0 Release Review

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Any hints how to present
the information so that it is relevant for the consumers? May be you can
give me a link to another project which reports the numbers.

I think a sentence like this is fine
... or, I don't know, maybe a link to a bugzilla query ... or ... GIt query?
... 
"since
Kepler was released there were 22 new bugs opened and 17 resolved (not
only from the 22), and there are in total 64 still open"

BUT, honestly, I may be old fashioned
thinking about "fixed rates" or "fixed/open" ratios
... because I looked around for 10 or 15 minutes and I could not find any
other reviews that included such information. Or ... maybe its just too
much work, especially to make "meaningful", as you mentioned.
Or ... maybe most projects are too embarrassed to show their open rate
is a lot higher then their fix rate. :) 

I really meant it as a "nice touch"
comment ... nothing required, so totally up to you ... or maybe someone
else has seen some good examples? 

Again, thanks for including/releasing
MAT. 





From:      
 "Tsvetkov, Krum"
<krum.tsvetkov@xxxxxxx>
To:      
 Tools PMC mailing list
<tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Date:      
 05/30/2014 06:55 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [tools-pmc]
Memory Analyzer 1.4.0 Release Review
Sent by:    
   tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi David,
 
Thanks for the +1!
 
>> While
not required, as a "reader/consumer" I always like to see some
pointers to "number of bugs fixed" vs. "open" or similar
... but that's more "nice touch" rather than required ... and
... could just be me. 

Where would you normally
put such information – directly in the release description or somewhere
else?
Do you mean just the pure
numbers opened/resolved/still open? 
I ran some search on our
bugs – since Kepler was released there were 22 new bugs opened and 17
resolved (not only from the 22), and there are in total 64 still open.
However, part of these tickets were just opened to track some project internal
housekeeping changes (like switch version to x.y.z, remove obsolete folders,
fix copyright headers, …). I don’t think such changes are interesting
for the consumers of the project.
 
Any hints how to present
the information so that it is relevant for the consumers? May be you can
give me a link to another project which reports the numbers.
 
Krum
 
 
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2014 16:27
To: Tools PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] Memory Analyzer 1.4.0 Release Review
 
+1 Looks good. 

While not required, as a "reader/consumer" I always like to see
some pointers to "number of bugs fixed" vs. "open"
or similar ... but that's more "nice touch" rather than required
... and ... could just be me. 

Over all, very nice. Motivates me to use it more! :) 





From:        "Tsvetkov,
Krum" <krum.tsvetkov@xxxxxxx>
To:        "tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        05/27/2014
09:59 AM 
Subject:        [tools-pmc]
Memory Analyzer 1.4.0 Release Review
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Dear PMC Members, 
  
please approve the review documentation for Memory Analyzer (tools.mat)
1.4.0. 
This release will be part of Luna.
  
The review documentation is available in the PMI.
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.mat/releases/1.4.0/review
  
The IP Log is already approved.
  
Best Regards, 
Krum 
 _______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc