You've probably seen various social media posts, blogs, articles, etc., purporting to compare AOO and LO via commit statistics. If you poke a little you see that these are almost always derived from Ohloh. You can see our numbers here:
https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice It is important to keep in mind what exactly Ohloh is doing. They are looking at our Subversion repository, at the source and website trunks, and tracking the commits made there. But we have done our most-significant code in branches, not in the trunk. All of the Sidebar work was done in a branch, all of the IAccesible2 work was done in branch and all of the 4.0.1 work was done in a branch. That's how we do use Subversion: develop new features in a branch and merge to the trunk when stable. So how does Ohloh treat this approach to version control? As an example, look at how the IAccesible2 addition was treated: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/commits/303139831 As you can see, Ohloh sees this as a single commit. Yes, 601 files were modified, but it still shows up as only a single commit, because Ohloh only sees the merge. It does not see the actually underlying development activity. A similar thing happened with the Sidebar feature as well. The development effort was accounted for as a single commit. LO, on the other hand, uses a different approach with git, and every single one of their commits are registered by Ohloh, even if it is a one-line change. So comparing AOO and LO Ohloh stats is not a valid comparison. Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should point this out wherever we see it. Regards, -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
