4 ms·

Uhm, you gave the answer yourself? The only sane metric is "the time it takes for developers to diagnose and resolve issues".

by jlg23 11y ago

takmusashi 11y ago
Yeah, time to diagnose & resolve is definitely a key metric. It gets challenging when trying to tease out the benefit from a high quality bug report versus other factors such as how well the developer happens to know that part of the code base or how simple the required fix happens to be. Perhaps some statistics would be in order to somehow account for these other factors...
DrScump 11y ago
That strikes me as an unfair metric. Really complex problems or intermittent behaviors exist; a reporter can do a highly diligent job of isolating and reproducing a bug whose cause is not easily diagnosable. That difficulty is hardly the fault of the reporter. If a bug reporter thoroughly documents a problem (and its attempted workarounds and behaviors) diligently and clearly, just be damn thankful that s/he took the time and made the effort.
- jlg23 11y ago
  > If a bug reporter thoroughly documents a problem (and its attempted workarounds and behaviors) diligently and clearly That is exactly the metric I am referring. Of course, some bugs take longer to solve than others, but I can only start when I am able to reproduce the bug. The less steps to reproduce them, the better. The more concise the bug report, the better. Once you can reproduce it, I consider it essentially fixed, its only up to the developer to wrap their head around it and actually implement the fix it. And on, I am not "damn thankful" for the effort alone; I had to fire testers for showing much effort but not being helpful at all, even after long periods of training. The last time I was awarded for effort alone was in pre-school. When you buy a car that breaks down every 100 miles you probably would return it and not watch the manufacturer try to fix it 20 times, lauding their "effort"? Good testers are worth their weight in gold, they are very rare, they save us developers insane amounts of time and thus the company we work for a lot of money.

Uhm, you gave the answer yourself? The only sane metric is "the time it takes for developers to diagnose and resolve issues".

by jlg23 11y ago

Uhm, you gave the answer yourself? The only sane metric is "the time it takes for developers to diagnose and resolve issues".

takmusashi 11y ago

Yeah, time to diagnose & resolve is definitely a key metric. It gets challenging when trying to tease out the benefit from a high quality bug report versus other factors such as how well the developer happens to know that part of the code base or how simple the required fix happens to be. Perhaps some statistics would be in order to somehow account for these other factors...

DrScump 11y ago

That strikes me as an unfair metric. Really complex problems or intermittent behaviors exist; a reporter can do a highly diligent job of isolating and reproducing a bug whose cause is not easily diagnosable. That difficulty is hardly the fault of the reporter. If a bug reporter thoroughly documents a problem (and its attempted workarounds and behaviors) diligently and clearly, just be damn thankful that s/he took the time and made the effort.

jlg23 11y ago
> If a bug reporter thoroughly documents a problem (and its attempted workarounds and behaviors) diligently and clearly That is exactly the metric I am referring. Of course, some bugs take longer to solve than others, but I can only start when I am able to reproduce the bug. The less steps to reproduce them, the better. The more concise the bug report, the better. Once you can reproduce it, I consider it essentially fixed, its only up to the developer to wrap their head around it and actually implement the fix it. And on, I am not "damn thankful" for the effort alone; I had to fire testers for showing much effort but not being helpful at all, even after long periods of training. The last time I was awarded for effort alone was in pre-school. When you buy a car that breaks down every 100 miles you probably would return it and not watch the manufacturer try to fix it 20 times, lauding their "effort"? Good testers are worth their weight in gold, they are very rare, they save us developers insane amounts of time and thus the company we work for a lot of money.