[yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: raw metrics

[Philip Balister]

On 11/08/2017 02:57 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, akuster <akuster at mvista.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 11/07/2017 01:59 PM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nico – thanks for this, I have been meaning to get back to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless there is a reason to keep the conversation wide, let’s start a
>> separate thread with interested parties. Let me know if you’d like to be
>> part of the metrics conversation.
>>
>> Please include me in the new thread.
>>
> 
> me too. please.
> 

me to. Please

Philip

> 
>>
>> - armin
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey “Jefro” Osier-Mixon, Intel Corporation
>>
>> Open Source Community Manager
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-ab-bounces@
>> yoctoproject.org <yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org>] * On Behalf Of *Nicolas
>> Dechesne
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:37 AM
>> *To:* Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro at jefro.net> <jefro at jefro.net>
>> *Cc:* yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: raw metrics
>>
>>
>>
>> hi Jeff,
>>
>> thanks for showing this and sharing the link.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we take a look at the top repo, we see
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> Commits are counted once (of course), and since several of these trees are
>> 'combined' together, most commits end up (wrongly?) in poky-contrib. We
>> probably want to show that in a different way. I can guess that the trees
>> are processed in a specific 'order' and that each commit is attributed to a
>> repo when it is first met. So that means that the ordered list we provide
>> is important, and we need to decide how we want to look at the data.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are 2 possible orders (for the main repo):
>>
>> 1. poky
>>
>> 2. bitbake
>>
>> 3. oe-core
>>
>> 4. meta-yocto
>>
>> 5. *-contrib
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. oe-core
>>
>> 2. bitbake
>>
>> 3. meta-yocto
>>
>> 4. poky
>>
>> 5. *-contrib
>>
>>
>>
>> Both options should give different views. Based on the structure of our
>> development process, I suppose that the 2nd one makes more sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some additional questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Can we choose which branches in repo are processed? At the very least
>> -next branches should not be taken into account.
>>
>> * Should we try to track only 'release' branches as much as possible
>>
>> * Isn't poky-buildhistory irrelevant here? I think we should remove it
>>
>> * Should we keep the -contrib trees?
>>
>> * can you share the whole list of repo that are being used?
>>
>>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> nico
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro at jefro.net> wrote:
>>
>> These are the metrics links we discussed yesterday. Think of these as
>> building blocks to provide data. Now we need to figure out good questions
>> to ask to determine how to measure the health of the community. This will
>> be an ongoing effort over the next quarter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bitergia is a company that LF has contracted with to provide metrics for
>> all of their collaborative projects. Intel paid for additional data sets
>> and support on behalf of the Yocto Project. Through these tools we have
>> visualized data for the git repos, mailing lists, and bugzilla instance.
>> These visualizations are highly configurable, and the whole setup is built
>> with open source software.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://yoctoproject.biterg.io
>>
>>
>>
>> OpenHub is a BlackDuck project that provides a medium-depth dive into the
>> git server.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/YoctoProject
>>
>>
>> Now that we have these tools, I look forward to working with those
>> interested on customizing the data set definitions so we know exactly what
>> we are looking at.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeff Osier-Mixon - Open Source Community Manager, Intel Corporation
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto-ab mailing list
>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>