2002-04-23 22:40:12

by Larry McVoy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: graphical cset stats

http://www.bitkeeper.com/linux-csets.png

Any better?


2002-04-24 00:27:26

by Greg KH

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: graphical cset stats

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> http://www.bitkeeper.com/linux-csets.png
>
> Any better?

Very neat stuff, I can hear the managers subscribed to the list panting
for more :)


greg k-h

2002-04-24 00:33:16

by Daniel Gryniewicz

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: graphical cset stats

But it is interesting how it's an exponential progression.

Daniel

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:25:20 -0700
Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > http://www.bitkeeper.com/linux-csets.png
> >
> > Any better?
>
> Very neat stuff, I can hear the managers subscribed to the list panting
> for more :)
>
>
> greg k-h

2002-04-24 04:19:52

by Linus Torvalds

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: graphical cset stats

In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel Gryniewicz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>But it is interesting how it's an exponential progression.

I think it's a bit dangerous, because it is so misleading. Both the "top
performers" are clearly integrators rather than big coders, and I
suspect a lot of my "cset-points" are actually from the early BK tree
creation where every single cset got attributed to me simply because
they got merged from the historic non-SCM patch info.

Certainly looking at the SCM statistics from the last 500 ChangeSets, 63
of them were attributed to me ("Hey, Linus does 12% of all kernel coding
himself! Studly, man!"), but if you actually look at the details of the
changesets, you'll notice that I'm a total loser, and I end up doing
little coding and most of my changesets are merges, cset excludes,
kernel version updates etc ("Hey, Linus is a complete moron!")..

So I personally get a bit nervous about pretty graphs - they _seem_ to
say so much, yet they clearly don't tell enough. Which can be a bit
dangerous if somebody takes them too seriously. They're just simple
enough that you think you get the RealTruth(tm).

Linus

2002-04-29 03:29:20

by Rusty Russell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: graphical cset stats

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:18:45 +0000 (UTC)
[email protected] (Linus Torvalds) wrote:

> So I personally get a bit nervous about pretty graphs - they _seem_ to
> say so much, yet they clearly don't tell enough. Which can be a bit
> dangerous if somebody takes them too seriously. They're just simple
> enough that you think you get the RealTruth(tm).

Shut up Linus! They're obviously revealing a Deeper Truth.

12th best kernel coder on the planet! Woohoo!
Rusty.
--
there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy