On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:24:02 -0600, Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:15:58 -0300 > Fernando Carrijo <fcarr...@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > > For sure the information contained in git logs don't measure how high-level > > the > > changes are being submitted, but it would be nice to devise some metrics, > > apart > > from the usual LOC, which could help us visualize the architectural impact > > caused by the big players. > > I've wanted such a metric for a long time. Lines of code is a terrible > metric for work done in general, even if you don't want to make a > distinction between "architectural" and other changes. Changeset > counts aren't really any better. Among other things, both create poor > incentives if people actually start to care about the numbers.
A viable solution would be to weight the hunks of a commit against a database of scores for each file, or module, in a project. We could calibrate the database by assigning higher scores to those files considered cornerstones, in lieu of the less fundamental ones. Thus, by maintaining a database such as the following: File Score ---- ----- *.{xml,man,txt} 1 app/* 3 doc/* 2 driver/*.[ch] 3 xserver/dix/*.[ch] 5 xserver/hw/*.[ch] 4 we could run a script on a patch like this: --- a/dix/dispatch.c +++ b/dix/dispatch.c /* FIRST HUNK */ /* SECOND HUNK */ --- a/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/Pci.c +++ b/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/Pci.c /* THIRD HUNK */ and obtain a weighted score of 5 + 5 + 4 = 14 for the whole patch. Here be dragons, though. > That said, I've still not found a better way of trying to measure > "who's doing the work," especially in the context of a high-bandwidth > project like the kernel. If anybody has any ideas, I'm all ears... Me too! _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com