Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release, it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts would show as a new block. Michael's has the advantage that it shows the relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
S. On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of > the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the > message I'm after. > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > > > > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png > > > > > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I > > > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives" > > > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. > > > > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? > > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html > > > > While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in > > helping people understand the current state of the community and the > extent > > of its diversity. > > > > S. > > > > > > >
