Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 6, 2013
Posted Feb 17, 2010 17:09 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)
We have good history through the BitKeeper era, which could easily extend the view back a few years. Prior to that, of course, it's a big mess, though we do have per-release resolution for the most part.
But, yes, wouldn't it be interesting to know how much of 2.4.x we're still running?
Posted Feb 17, 2010 17:57 UTC (Wed) by eli (guest, #11265)
I am picturing a different graph that I think might tell us more about kernel development than the bar graphs above.
The Y-axis would be the absolute number of lines of code, and the X-axis would be kernel releases.
Each kernel release would have a line that started at its release number. You'd have the total number of lines in the kernel marked for 2.6.12.
Then you'd draw a line to the 2.6.13 release to show how many lines of 2.6.12 remained in 2.6.13, and you'd start a new line for 2.6.13 showing the total number of lines in 2.6.13. Each new release would add a new line on the graph. It should look a bit like strata layers or something.
Over time, you should see some patterns in how the releases get replaced over time. If one release was particularly badly done, we'd see it start out with a large number of lines of code at its release, and see it rapidly squeezed to a small number of lines of code by later releases.
I wonder if there is such a thing as a "code half-life"...
Posted Feb 19, 2010 22:32 UTC (Fri) by aegl (subscriber, #37581)
Here's a graph showing growth of the kernel, and decline of the original
Posted Feb 22, 2010 17:04 UTC (Mon) by aegl (subscriber, #37581)
The lowest line is the 2.6.12-rc2 git origin. Count up from there
to 2.6.32 at the top. Scripts were run with current tip of "linus"
tree at v2.6.33-rc8-113-gf8b55f2 so it doesn't take into account the
320 lines of code added and 149 deleted over the weekend.
Visually there does seem to be an inflection point around 2.6.27
where we slowed down at deleting old code (perhaps because there
was so much new code to be deleted instead?)
Posted Feb 22, 2010 17:40 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
I wonder if the inflection point can be attributed to the staging tree?
(That's certainly a lot of new crap^Wcode to be deleted...)
Posted Feb 26, 2010 0:26 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
Posted Feb 26, 2010 14:44 UTC (Fri) by eli (guest, #11265)
'Course, now I need to stare at it for an hour looking for all the interesting things it's trying to tell me. ;)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 18:31 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 18:35 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 18:57 UTC (Wed) by PO8 (guest, #41661)
I'm on the Program Committee for the 5th Workshop on Public Data about Software Development (WoPDaSD 2010), and the paper deadline is coming up in March. I would really love to see you and/or other readers of LWN get this kind of data and analysis together as a workshop paper and submit it there. We don't get so many submissions from outside academia, and that's a shame—I'm confident that this work would be quite well-received.
Posted Feb 17, 2010 20:50 UTC (Wed) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)
Posted Feb 18, 2010 0:02 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
"The full name of the compiler is "Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym", which is, for obvious reasons, abbreviated "INTERCAL"."
Posted Feb 18, 2010 7:48 UTC (Thu) by PO8 (guest, #41661)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 19:25 UTC (Wed) by marineam (subscriber, #28387)
I'm guessing writing a smarter script would be faster. :-P
Posted Feb 17, 2010 22:24 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
once this is done the combined archive can be treated as a single archive and I expect that the scripts used for this report could be used as-is (although it will obviously take longer)
IIRC, the historical git archive goes all the way back to the 0.0x days (although not without gaps)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 22:31 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Feb 17, 2010 22:38 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
Posted Feb 23, 2010 0:34 UTC (Tue) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976)
If anyone is interested, I can forward the ~210k archive of the program building the tree.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds