Cc: Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>, <ksummit-2008-discuss@...>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...>
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 05:36:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 04:23:52PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > My raw numbers show that the number of individual kernel contributors
> > > continues to increase with every release, so this might not be as much
> > > of a problem as it's made out to be.
> >
> > That depends on whether we are gradually adding to the pool
> > of developers, or seeing an increasing stream of newcomers
> > who supply a patch or two before disappearing again.
> >
> > If you look at the list of contributors some old release for
> > which we have good data (say 2.6.16). How many of those people
> > contributed to each of the following releases? Does the
> > decay curve look steeper or more gentle if you start from
> > a more recent release?
>
> I don't know, I haven't tracked the people individually that way, only
> looked at the basic numbers of developers per release.
Are you just doing something like
git log v2.6.16..v2.6.17 | grep ^Author: | sort -u| wc -l
or do you have some script that maps addresses to people ?
One person may appear once in 2.6.20, and then a half dozen times
in 2.6.21 if they use multiple email addresses for example.
(Also, typos, and people using full hostnames in their sign-off's
instead of email addresses skew this somewhat).
I'm guessing the latter, due to the graph thing you did. Pointers?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
