[yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: raw metrics

[Philip Balister]

On 10/24/2017 09:36 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
> 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

poky is built from several layers that are already include, so no need
to include it. I agree with Nicolas.

> * Should we keep the -contrib trees?
> * can you share the whole list of repo that are being used?
> 

Layers should now include information about what layers they depend on.
By counting the number of times a layer is used by other layers gives us
a "popularity" figure of merit. We should look at metrics for popular
layers. (I suspect we can figure this out by inspection also)

We should also look at including member bsp layers hosts on
git.yoctoproject.org.

Philip



> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
>