| |||||||||||||
Who wrote 2.6.20?Who wrote 2.6.20?Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:53 UTC (Wed) by johill (subscriber, #25196)In reply to: Who wrote 2.6.20? by simlo Parent article: Who wrote 2.6.20?
I think the point is that Jon simply can't know whether someone is affiliated with a tiny company or working on their own in most cases. In those cases he did know, he distinguished (companies are listed, and "(None)" is listed), but in those he doesn't that's reflected by "(unknown)".
(Log in to post comments)
Who wrote 2.6.20? Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:12 UTC (Wed) by fozzy (guest, #7022) [Link] A few quick comments:
First great work Jon!
I wonder if a "Sponsored by" type addition that could be used in the MAINTAINERS file would make this sort of analysis in the future easier. The emails could then be matched to sponsor - maybe even defining a special "myself" sponsor for those doing the work privately. I'm sure a lot of companies would be happy for the recognition it would bring. However, as a kernel user rather than a contributor, maybe such a suggestion is culturally inappropriate.
Do you plan on making the scripts available so others can slice and dice the numbers without having to be such a got-foo expert?
Again, thanks for such interesting analysis.
Releasing the scripts Posted Feb 21, 2007 13:56 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I guess I don't see any reason why I couldn't make my scripts available - it would be a rather more straightforward affair than releasing the site code...:) It may take a week or so (I have a lot of other things to do), but I'll try to get that done. Be warned that they are not a thing of beauty, though...
Releasing the scripts Posted Feb 23, 2007 9:49 UTC (Fri) by PhilHannent (guest, #1241) [Link] It could end up like GIT and really taking off.
Its something I would like to see on a monthly basis and perhaps with added charting. An interested party could develop it further for you and you could still put the results on the site.
Sounds great to me.
Releasing the scripts Posted Mar 2, 2007 0:09 UTC (Fri) by turpie (guest, #5219) [Link] The problem with this idea is that it may encourage people to produce longer code rather than efficient code so that they can get a higher score.
|
|||||||||||||