Jump to content

Talk:Bus factor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Misiu mp (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 15 August 2011 (Is high bus factor good or bad ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing: Software Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Is high bus factor good or bad ?

It appears that high bus factor means that a lot of people have to be incapacitated to disable a project, which is good. The bus factor in itself is something bad. Think: A bus accident is bad. In a bus accident, the bus is a factor. It has a high "bus factor". In common language you could say that something has a bus factor if the bus factor is a problem. On the other hand, if it is not on the horizon one could probably say, there is no bus factor involved. With this usage a zero bus factor is good and more than zero is bad, which is contrary to the definition.

It would be more straight-forward if the definition followed common logic - high bus factor is bad (which could be problematic to express numerically). Choosing a more positive name could help, e.g. bus survival factor. Any of those are difficult to do if the current usage is spread.

In any case a clarification should be made in the article. I didn't do it because I'm not sure if I get it right myself. Misiu mp (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Linux

The provided reference doesn't support the claim made for it. It actually says that obviously the bus factor for Linux isn't one, and then goes on to suggest a pointless experiment.

Other Linux trees have been maintained without Linus, the maintenance trees (for 2.4 and 2.2) are maintained without Linus, as are the short-lived stable trees like 2.6.18.x and various trees like AC have thrived without Linus. As have those architecture trees which for whatever reason didn't get frequent merges. If a better reference can't be found, this claim, and arguably the whole article, should go. 82.69.171.90 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the reference is to a definition, example of use, and such. A better reference should be sought, though, yes. —AySz88\^-^ 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article author understands this too so he mentioned that it only is considered for the vanilla tree so I am going to specify the example better in the article. Tempust (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is Truck Number, see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/wikibase?TruckNumber and http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1543370 JonathanWakely (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Why should I also see Cross-training? It seems completely unrelated. 70.253.162.238 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and remember to Be bold! I've removed it. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bus_factor&oldid=445009962"