I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers are too small."
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss. -g On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" <nthieb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM: >> >>> >>> - $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log >>> + $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03' >>>$outdir/all-lo.log >>> >>> Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch >>> contributed in the last six months like this: >>> >>> Employers with the most hackers (total 214) >>> (Unknown) 138 (64.5%) >>> Oracle 45 (21.0%) >>> Novell 18 (8.4%) >>> Known contributors 7 (3.3%) >>> Canonical 4 (1.9%) >>> Redhat 2 (0.9%) >>> >> >> If I'm reading this correctly, you're quoting the Oracle developers as >> being contributors to LibreOffice? That is not particularly useful for >> project planning purposes. Perhaps the core count for Oracle is closer to >> the mark, if we extract only that out. > > You are not reading this correctly, but more importantly the point is > that this contradict your claim earlier: > > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:34 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: >> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache >> criteria for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within >> the last 6 months), I see only 54 names. > > Everybody is entitled to their own opinions... but not their own facts. > > Norbert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
