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 15:37:18 +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 1447313854 1238 80.91.229.3 (12 Nov 2015 07:37:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:37:34 +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 08:37:34 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 1ZwmRk-0006EY-6k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:37:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44980 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmRj-0000JK-CF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:37:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46298) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmRe-0000JF-VZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:37:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmRd-0002bj-Ti for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:37:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]:33198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwmRa-0002a3-HY; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:37:18 -0500 Original-Received: by iouu10 with SMTP id u10so49388018iou.0; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:37:18 -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=nMGIhg1QbotFhgsuLsKRQj4q6BdmcR6UmGYFgoiucZA=; b=Sl7jABTOgtxF5dq5OMy2jjkDIepJEcqtQJIpxdESs9O9jFs2m9D1wnuSNJ4mXU39Yo +GPW5dow7iQqr8XrADdHdpayZRn4NtTmmkzzGDXlXMcg6rfMjvOEInMPO5a33BQAkyEH pTR5k7AiBliqyeytV+Bv5OEeTyil9YDmwQCQgBeRu+/ZgTEbKb7EwaR0+jeO1tReYQkE kkGWsQ35PfPlRvUhSiwiMzwL7s66YcD9ByRgxJA5EnV3MQvP0gXk8bpIaR1ce1Q1lNr9 jyYIUSd5q1Ax89lm1obqtRbRdV78BvzWgVuE7ufQYgfKrIRbaHJ+LUYfvdIiSZshXWia tuHA== X-Received: by 10.107.137.226 with SMTP id t95mr12951972ioi.188.1447313838091; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:37:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.79.94.2 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:37:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e 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:194199 Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Xue Fuqiao wrote: > 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] Sorry, I inadvertently omitted LibreOffice. LibreOffice has * 81 contributors and 1871 commits in the last 30 days * 277 contributors and 19617 commits in the last 12 months * (I don't know the number of people actively involved in the patch review process in LibreOffice.)