[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues (original) (raw)

R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com
Sat Sep 25 23:02:18 CEST 2010

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:22:06 +0200, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:

Am 25.09.2010 14:10, schrieb "Martin v. L=F6wis": > The total numbers reported are really the totals. Also, the delta > reported for the totals is the difference to the last report.

> The number reported with +/- for open/closed are not deltas, but the > number of issues opened since last week. As some open issues were closed > and some closed issues were opened, they don't sum up the way you > expect. An example: > old: > open: #1 #2 > closed: #3 #4 > new: > open: #1 #3 #5 > closed: #2 #4 > The report would be > open: 3 (+2, namely #3 and #5); delta would be +1 > closed: 2 (+1, namely #4); delta would be 0 > IOW, the numbers after +/- match the counts in the lists shown below, > not the delta since last week. Yes, and that's what I complained about. However, your example doesn't demonstrate my problem, since its deltas are real deltas, and +1 + +0 = +1. I guess a better example would be old: open #1 #2 closed #3 new: open #1 closed #2 #3 #4 #5 which results in +2 for open (since #4 and #5 were opened) and +3 for closed (since #2, #4 and #5 were closed), however the total issue delta is +2. Th= is why I think these numbers should be labeled "openings" and "closings".

I haven't looked at the code, so I don't know the details of the algorithm that is actually used, but from what Ezio said your example is not correct. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of issues opened/closed in the past week that are still open or closed. So open would certainly not be +2. I'm not sure if it would be +0 or -1 without looking at the code.

I agree that having the delta against open from the previous week would be the most helpful.

--David

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list