Some 4.20 development statistics

Posted Dec 22, 2018 14:51 UTC (Sat) by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
Parent article: Some 4.20 development statistics

It makes me a bit nervous that a single company (IBM) is now the source of > 25% of core changesets.

One company

Posted Dec 22, 2018 15:11 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (4 responses)

...note that IBM's prominence there is for the 4.20 cycle only; it would have arguably made a lot more sense to integrate over a year. For 4.20, this core contribution was dominated by Paul McKenney's RCU work.

If you look at roughly the last year (since 4.15), it comes out like this:

Red Hat: 19%
SUSE: 11%
Oracle: 7%
IBM: 6%
Huawei: 5%
Intel: 5%
Google: 4%
Facebook: 4%
Microsoft: 4%
(None): 3%

The table in the article was accurate but somewhat misleading; my apologies for that.

One company

Posted Dec 22, 2018 15:17 UTC (Sat) by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733) [Link] (1 responses)

Over the longer period, IBM + RHT still come up to ~25% of changesets. I don't see this as a problem in and of itself but suspect the kernels vendor neutral reputation is critical for long term health of the project.

One company

Posted Dec 25, 2018 7:01 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

You keep a vendor neutral reputation by being vendor neutral. Not excluding contributors because they are being paid by a particular vendor is part of that. Whoever is capable of positively contributing to the kernel should be allowed to.

One company

Posted Dec 22, 2018 15:18 UTC (Sat) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] (1 responses)

On the gripping hand, Red Hat's 19% plus IBM's 6% still gives 25% for IBM (here at the end of 2018), even if the entire year is considered...

One company

Posted Dec 24, 2018 19:40 UTC (Mon) by tonyblackwell (guest, #43641) [Link]

Ha! Are we all Moties then? An analogy of kernel development perhaps?