| |||||||||||||
Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycleStatistics for the 2.6.36 development cyclePosted Oct 14, 2010 6:56 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)Parent article: Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycle
I like the idea of faster and smaller kernel cycles. As you note the changesets/day ratio is actually higher than it has been, even though the changesets/release is lower.
having people waiting less time for the next merge cycle decreases the preasure to get a change into this merge window (even if it's not quite ready), and this tends to improve the quality of the changes, ....
remember that when Linus started the current development model, he was aiming at 2-month cycles
you should get the ancient kernel git repository and graft it on to the main repository and see what the longevity graph looks like with the additional data.
(Log in to post comments)
Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycle Posted Oct 14, 2010 7:28 UTC (Thu) by Gollum (subscriber, #25237) [Link]
Yes, I was also thinking that grafting the historical git repo would be a good idea.
And perhaps presenting the graph as a stacked graph, with older kernels lower down. This would make it easy to say "40% of the code is older than 2.6.24", for example.
Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycle Posted Oct 17, 2010 14:12 UTC (Sun) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
I would actually like to know what the oldest line/code in the kernel is. :-)
Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycle Posted Oct 17, 2010 15:52 UTC (Sun) by Gollum (subscriber, #25237) [Link]
I'm not 100% sure if there are full records back to 0.00 days, but I'm sure somewhere out there there are tarballs of a lot of old releases which could be imported.
It would make a heck of an experiment, building a *complete* git repo.
Statistics for the 2.6.36 development cycle Posted Oct 17, 2010 16:30 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
people have already done the work, that is the 'historical' repo that I was mentioning
|
|||||||||||||