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
info@openhub.net
Ontopia analysis is unfair
There's a number of problems with the analysis of the Ontopia project's source code. I thought I'd just post them all here for consideration.
(1) Apache-ish License may conflict with GPL
Sure. The trouble is the only file that contains the GPL is copyrights.txt, a file we are required to distribute, that contains the license for modules we use. So there is in fact no conflict.
(2) The project is written in XML
In fact, it is no such thing. Instead, Subversion contains documentation (in XML), test cases (in XML), and example data (in XML). All of this makes up a lot of bytes, but it's not even remotely relevant to the product itself, 95% of which is Java.
(3) Few source code comments
This is not true. The Java code is well documented. The XML, however, is not. Most of the XML is XML Topic Maps (XTM) files, where comments would be pointless. Similarly, in test cases comments are superflouous (and in the baseline (which is in canonical format) illegal).
In other words, the mistaken emphasis on XML confuses the analysis.
Hi larsga,
I believe that the Ohloh report is correct on all 3 counts, although I admit that our terse presentation leaves a lot of room for doubt.
(1) Ohloh found the GPL in the following two source files:
ontopia/src/webapps/ontopoly/src/main/java/ontopoly/jquery/jquery.js
sandbox/emacs/ltm-mode.el
I confirmed this by reviewing the source code. Ohloh does not parse the copyrights.txt file, so that file alone will not flag a conflict.
(2) Ohloh does not claim that this is an XML project. In our summary, we state that this application is mostly written in Java
. We are smart enough to make this statement even though there is a ton of XML content in this source tree.
(3) For comment ratio comparisons, Ohloh considers only the Java source code. XML does not come into play here at all.
If you consider only the Java source files, you will find that this project's comment ratio (21%) is well below the global average for Java (34%).
Hi Robin,
I stand corrected. I think your analysis is fair.
However, I believe Ohloh would be better if it would show which files contained the various licenses. At least when there's a limited number, as here. That way we (and potential users) would see what the issue is.
Similarly, if the Few source code comments
statement had included the percentage it would have been much stronger.