Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: OpenACS CVS Statistics Report

Collapse
Posted by Jeff Davis on
Mark, I have some acs 4.2 checkouts and I think 400k or so is about right for the original code base. Also, the 1.5mm lines of code are a bit deceptive in that there are some things like .eps files and .html files in docs which are big but autogenerated from something else.

There is a lot of bias in the simple line counts (eg. don and ben get a lot from initial imports, Joel from docs and the .eps files, danw and some others from the autogenerated .xql files, me from doing merges, etc).

Here is a sum of lines changed this calendar year with some attempt made to correct for the biases:

  author   | files | lines | added | removed
-----------+-------+-------+-------+---------
 lars      |  1324 | 29279 | 19436 |    9843
 joela     |  1749 | 25964 | 17309 |    8655
 peterm    |  1263 | 24303 | 17786 |    6517
 jader     |   866 | 23535 | 15609 |    7926
 jeffd     |  1148 | 21325 | 12407 |    8918
 donb      |   746 |  8921 |  4869 |    4052
 josee     |   435 |  8766 |  5429 |    3337
 daveb     |   594 |  6975 |  4882 |    2093
 maltes    |   432 |  6873 |  4332 |    2541
 timoh     |   402 |  6228 |  4131 |    2097
 dirkg     |   210 |  5864 |  2758 |    3106
 bdolicki  |   204 |  5410 |  4575 |     835
 tilmanns  |    75 |  3756 |  2868 |     888
 gyang     |   233 |  3701 |  2504 |    1197
 alfredw   |   341 |  2956 |  1128 |    1828
 andrewg   |   150 |  2942 |  2265 |     677
 janine    |   153 |  2917 |  2335 |     582
 bartt     |    39 |  1973 |  1852 |     121
 gabrielb  |   113 |  1973 |   864 |    1109
 rocaelh   |   443 |  1884 |  1652 |     232
 tracya    |   141 |  1449 |  1183 |     266
 olah      |    73 |  1070 |   620 |     450
 joel      |     1 |  1028 |   559 |     469
 juny      |    53 |   740 |   320 |     420
 alvaror   |    27 |   631 |   451 |     180
 janines   |    30 |   558 |   377 |     181
 eduardop  |    32 |   503 |    87 |     416
 rmello    |    16 |   484 |   305 |     179
 vinodk    |    12 |   283 |   103 |     180
 tils      |    26 |   209 |   186 |      23
 marka     |    39 |   171 |    96 |      75
 nimam     |     9 |   154 |    92 |      62
 jvdongen  |    17 |   151 |   119 |      32
 carlb     |     5 |   129 |    53 |      76
 skaufman  |     7 |    87 |    85 |       2
 ernieg    |   204 |    63 |    50 |      13
 jong      |     8 |    60 |    24 |      36
 leed      |     8 |    52 |    40 |      12
 jlaine    |     4 |    23 |    17 |       6
 benb      |     2 |    19 |    14 |       5
 carolinem |    94 |     4 |     2 |       2
(41 rows)
Of course, line counts do not really equate with the value of peoples contributions since some of the people who have low line counts fixed hard bugs and things which have a value much higher than the few lines they had to change would imply. The thing that is tremendous about this is the number of people who have actively contributed over the last year; I think you would find that compared to a lot of open source projects we have a much broader base of people with commit. I think a lot of the strength of OpenACS derives from our willingness to open to new contributors.
Collapse
Posted by Randy O'Meara on
I think if we are equating contributor value to changes in code base, it's also important to somehow include contributions via patch submission by folks that don't have CVS commit rights...
Collapse
Posted by Andrew Piskorski on
Contributed value can't really be adequately measured by LOC, and I don't think anyone above suggested otherwise. What these CVS statistics show though, is that a lot of code has been (and presumably is being) contributed, and by a lot of different people. That in and of itself is interesting, and like Jade says, maybe useful from a technical marketing point of view.