[ANNOUNCE] xorg-server

Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski curious at bwv190.internetdsl.tpnet.pl
Thu Jul 1 16:38:31 PDT 2010

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:15:58 -0300
> Fernando Carrijo <fcarrijo at 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.
> 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...

i doubt there is without engaging extra analytic workforce.
i think while project will 'run' on it's own for several years,
if anyone cares, separate semantic description and comment framework
could be performed - altrough i doubt it can be done with such scarce
resources like now - perhaps some university could be interested , but
i again doubt it will be able to analyse such large project 'in spare 

i certainly feel larger analytic brainstorm will be needed in course
of next few years, and modularising X and code cleanup was major
step forward it happening. though otoh when you look at 'bare numbers'
of amount people interested in development there is serious doubt if
project will be ever rebuilt , branched or sustained...
there is still hope though at least major shortcomings will be spotted,
and it will keep functionality and stability for next decade, even with
even more shrinking interest and resources .


More information about the xorg mailing list