x.org is Hacker Trash
dickey at radix.net
Fri Mar 30 03:52:49 PDT 2007
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:24:56PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 06:02:22AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:20:51PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > It is relatively complex, and in some cases (e.g. the apps)
> > > unnecessarily so. But the thing to realise is that most of the modules
> > > haven't changed in about a decade. It's quite painful initially, but
> > hmm - I would use (or only accept) a qualifier like "most" if I actually
> > had a number. Do you have one? I haven't seen any evidence that any
> > of the Xorg hackers do metrics, and am curious why this is so.
> 85 last modified 2005, 147 last modified 2006, 87 last modified 2007. A
iirc, modularization was done in the interval 2003-2005,
which seems to indicate that some activity is ongoing in 1/3 to 1/2 of
As an aside - the number-of-modules does not necessarily reflect
the distribution of code (some are much larger than others).
> much better counting utility would work out when the last _code_
> modification was, as modularisation bumped all of them for config.h and
> header locations. Plus, 'a lot' (submitted without metrics, at this
> point) of modules have only been bumped for man page and ChangeLog
> fixes, I'm willing to bet.
that should be easy to measure (for someone). I don't recall seeing
many (if any) diffstat's that reflected only that, however.
Thomas E. Dickey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the xorg