From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Xue Fuqiao Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Move to a cadence release model? Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:23:30 +0800 Message-ID: References: <83ziykk04o.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447313047 21285 80.91.229.3 (12 Nov 2015 07:24:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:24:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: john@yates-sheets.org, rms@gnu.org, Emacs-devel To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 12 08:23:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmEX-00081p-Lr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:23:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44937 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmEW-0004AY-TR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:23:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmER-00049x-Ii for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:23:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmEP-0006YW-5S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:23:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]:35881) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmEE-0006Ta-P5; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:23:30 -0500 Original-Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so57136282iof.3; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:23:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s+3/c/MWBdi3Ww5J4B14sLHTHN9CUFp6eDJncfEHDZ8=; b=UPkX7yoPMiCxbdty20nJjDLchYoOYQSeRZ6cQ2+i8iZ3wU9HYXSowhCeouHPN4YRkp wqz/9C5djbzhkHR38ViTZ5EgeXpEX3s/MTtvRXrFklH3cxnLxGq8Pce4vl3R7dcEDLS9 gPQt5vcdEvc11R8S0DscfmxNrJCZsNYIVxvQUtgB9BGqwGs9nD5OGxwr/GdSHS4Xc5ks JT8epYQp8FPMbhTwNOEYg+xlpOuc3GvN68ANiXXV25crQ8cK38EsAtphBYja71g6oB8Q g/njZVCn9s464CMJdJMp8NepepjwnoxxheH7r8WIe5pFx3W4AHrmBcxxy8FnVKrIS3Em V3OQ== X-Received: by 10.107.137.226 with SMTP id t95mr12915700ioi.188.1447313010113; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:23:30 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.79.94.2 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:23:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83ziykk04o.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194198 Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: Hi Eli, >> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:50:14 +0800 >> From: Xue Fuqiao >> Cc: Emacs-devel , John Yates >> >> Some examples of this model are Linux (a new release every few months, >> although there is a separate set of "stable" branches), Firefox (a new >> release every six weeks), Chromium (roughly the same as Firefox), and >> LibreOffice (six monthly releases). > > I think we can only have useful discussions of those other models if > they are not just mentioned, but described in some detail. Relevant > details IMO include the number of active developers, the number of > gatekeepers and/or people actively involved in the patch review > process, some statistics about the commit rate, etc. Only armed with > those details can we reason whether any of those models are applicable > to Emacs, and what would be the prerequisites of each model. E.g., > people talk about reviewing patches, pull requests, gerrit, etc., but > we don't even _have_ a patch review process per se. OK. Here are some relevant details I found. According to Black Duck Open Hub[1]: Linux has * 705 contributors and 3926 commits in the last 30 days * 3826 contributors and 68190 commits in the last 12 months * 1000+ maintainers[2] Firefox has * 396 contributors and 4558 commits in the last 30 days * 1180 contributors and 56950 commits in the last 12 months * About 30 gatekeepers[3] Chromium has * 909 contributors and 11410 commits in the last 30 days * 2457 contributors and 61454 commits in the last 12 months * (I have not yet counted the number of reviewers in Chromium. They are listed in the dir/OWNERS files of the source code.) OpenStack has * 321 contributors and 2312 commits in the last 30 days * 1757 contributors and 40212 commits in the last 12 months * (I don't know the number of people actively involved in the patch review process in OpenStack.) Finally, Emacs has * 40 contributors and 319 commits in the last 30 days * 200 contributors and 4244 commits in the last 12 months * Less than 10 people actively involved in code review[4] Footnotes: [1] https://www.openhub.net/ [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/linux/MAINTAINERS [3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Firefox [4] My impression: Dmitry Gutov, Glenn Morris, Michael Albinus, Stefan Monnier, Artur Malabarba, and you.