Forums : Suggestions for Ohloh 2.0
Dear Open Hub Users,
We’re excited to announce that we will be moving the Open Hub Forum to
https://community.blackduck.com/s/black-duck-open-hub.
Beginning immediately, users can head over,
register,
get technical help and discuss issue pertinent to the Open Hub. Registered users can also subscribe to Open Hub announcements here.
On May 1, 2020, we will be freezing https://www.openhub.net/forums and users will not be able to create new discussions. If you have any questions and concerns, please email us at
[email protected]
Modifier for development team size when using DVCS?
So I was wondering if the development team size metric should be adapted a bit for projects using a DVCS. Since DVCS usually keep the original author on the changeset (at least that's the case for Mercurial, not sure what it looks like for git, where I understand they have different tag lines in the commit message), and centralized systems have to make do with the names of the ones pushing the changesets, it seems unfair that DVCS-using projects tend to get a larger amount of names for pretty much the same amount of developers. Wouldn't it be good if Ohloh fixed this up a little bit?
So, it was pointed out to me that this wasn't entirely coherent. An attempt to clarify: when Ohloh makes the value judgement of e.g. Very large, active development team
or not, it should take into account when classifying whether a DVCS is used or not (because that has a probably somewhat significant effect on the active developer estimate).
I think this is a fair point. It's true that a DVCS ends up containing a lot more contributor names than an equivalent project using Subversion or CVS, simply because Subversion and CVS don't have a mechanism to preserve patch author names.
I'm amenable to the idea of raising the bar for large
teams when a DVCS is in play. If Ohloh's goal is simply to express the relative size of the community engaged on a project, then this might level the playing field a bit.
On the other hand -- and this is strictly a personal opinion -- I sort of feel that Subversion and CVS are less open
than a project that uses a DVCS, and perhaps deserve their penalty
here.
