| |||||||||||||
Who wrote 2.6.33Who wrote 2.6.33Posted Feb 11, 2010 10:44 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462)Parent article: Who wrote 2.6.33
It is not at all at the top of the list. Maybe you mean "at the top of the list where we discard the four times bigger contribution[*] of people who can't be identified as associated with a particular company". [*] Actual lines of kernel code changed.
(Log in to post comments)
Who wrote 2.6.33 Posted Feb 11, 2010 20:45 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
"None" is people known not to be working on a companies dime.
"Unknown" is the people who can't be identified as associated with a particular company.
Who wrote 2.6.33 Posted Feb 16, 2010 23:30 UTC (Tue) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] It is not at all at the top of the list. Maybe you mean "at the top of the list where we discard the four times bigger contribution[*] of people who can't be identified as associated with a particular company".[*] Actual lines of kernel code changed. Er...did we overlook the title of the graph? Specifically the "changesets" and "company" parts? ;-) (Also see the upstream clarification about what "(None)" means.) Greg
Who wrote 2.6.33 Posted Feb 17, 2010 11:22 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Er...did we overlook the title of the graph? Specifically the "changesets" and "company" parts? ;-) In the graph the large contribution that cannot be attributed to specific company-sponsored efforts is indeed completely discarded, when compared to the list, where the two categories "None" and "Unknown" are at the top of the list (I mentioned lines of code changed).
I observed that "number three in the list" is not "top of the list", especially since the article recognizes the "None" contribution as "significant".
Who wrote 2.6.33 Posted Feb 18, 2010 19:19 UTC (Thu) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link] "where the two categories "None" and "Unknown" are at the top of the list"Out of context, they yes do look to be at the top of the list. Within context, however, the collection referred to as '(none)' is merely above the list, for purpose of completeness if nothing else, as the list that is being discussed is as the title says: "Most active 2.6.33 employers"... as '(none)' isn't an employer, it can't be top of the list of active employers, which means that RedHat is at the top. By definition. As with '(unknown)', it's highly unlikely that all the changes under '(unknown)' are from a single employer, so it's unlikely that from that collection there is going to be someone who can top RedHat in the list. "I observed that "number three in the list" is not "top of the list"" Nup, you observed that you can be top of one set without being top of all sets :-)
Who wrote 2.6.33 Posted Feb 19, 2010 8:07 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] If what you are thinking is that one should take the "None" and "Unknown" categories out of the list titled "Most active employers", because we are only considering positively identified company contributions to the Linux kernel, then let's skip the step where I recommend basic courses in English, logic and statistics and just conclude that that's the scenario I was pointing out in my original comment.If you insist on leaving the academic trail and you want to play word games: see the title of the bloody article. Consider taking those courses. Skip set theory. If you were joking -- and I honestly hope you are -- I had a good laugh! Especially the "above the list" was a brilliant trouvaille.
|
|||||||||||||