| |||||||||||||
Some development statistics for 2.6.27Some development statistics for 2.6.27Posted Oct 11, 2008 16:47 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462)In reply to: Some development statistics for 2.6.27 by rahulsundaram Parent article: Some development statistics for 2.6.27 My original point about the US government was not terribly difficult: if developer X leaves company A and joins B, what does that mean in terms of sponsorship of the projects involved? A somewhat related question would be: how does this influence statistics like the one given here? The added value of a publication like LWN, of which I am a customer, is to say something clever about this. But as I said, personally I am more interested in submit time statistics. My other point was about the noble art of handwaving and the eagerness with which these statistics will be used to "prove" all kinds of things, some of which are not even present in the data, and I think you have illustrated that quite nicely: for instance, the fact that SELinux development also happens outside the scope of Linux kernel development is a nice example of the relative insignificance of these statistics.
(Log in to post comments)
Some development statistics for 2.6.27 Posted Oct 11, 2008 22:27 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
If a different company steps forward to sponsor the developers, then it shows they are interested in the development and want to influence it. These metrics are presented because they are often quite insightful especially if you are able to see the bigger picture over a period of time.
The single kernel release statistics are themselves useful as well but for other reasons. It is a matter of how well you use the data. If everybody worries about how things can be potentially misinterpreted, nothing will get done. Everything is aware that metrics such as these have that potential. Nothing new can be said about that.
|
|||||||||||||