Topic: TikiWiki stats are incorrect
I am reverting because it is now reporting: "Short source control history (4 months)" and only "44 contributors".
One day, I'll figure it out :-)
M ;-)
I am reverting because it is now reporting: "Short source control history (4 months)" and only "44 contributors".
One day, I'll figure it out :-)
M ;-)
I just replaced this with this.
I am hoping it will help with our stats. This is the branch we are really using until we release 1.10.0 (soon!)
Count of: Codebase 2,336,667 Effort (est.) 669 Person Years Avg. Salary $ year $ 36,811,554 seems much too high. I think something is counted in double.
The current image here jumps from 1.5M LOCs to 2.5M in a suspiciously short amount of time, and a few months later, from 2.5M to 3.5M
I'll revert if it makes things worse :-)
Best regards,
M ;-)
Hi Robin,
Thanks for the information.
Yes, /projects/tikiwiki/factoids works for me. In fact, it works better.
Why even bother with individual pages for factoids? Now, we must click back & forth to read all the factoids. It could just be some anchors all linking to one page.
About the information being updated and the quote no longer being accurate: Maybe just add a date of last update at the bottom of the factoid page. I am a wiki guy, so I could suggest to make a history of the page :-) But this is a lot of work and I don't think it's worth it.
If you drop individual factoid URLs, you could set a redirect so no existing links are broken, and everyone is just sent to general factoid page.
One thing that would be nice: That I could comment on the factoid page. In my case, I would like to add the following note:
The project _IS_ LGPL. The notes below about "may conflict with GPL" are caused because TikiWiki includes tripled licensed code. Please see: http://www.ohloh.net/forums/10/topics/1730
Best regards,
M ;-)
Hi!
I am linking to factoid information from here: http://tikiwiki.org/CMS+Landscape
But it has changed over time, so old links become blank page (and I am quoting Ohloh about activity level)
Here is what changed: http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=CMS%20Landscape&compare=1&oldver=109&newver=111&diff_style=sidediff
Can you use same URLs or at least not make old URLs blank?
Thanks!
M ;-)
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
Hi!
Here, I can filter and sort. This is very nice. I would like to take this a step further. Some ideas:
1- Add number of contributors to the "sort by".
2- Upon searching for a project, to be able to sort by stacks, number of contributors, etc. with a bookmarkable URL. Upon searching for a project, to have the tags listed, so we can get a good feel of what this project does.
3- Upon browsing by tags, to be able to sort by stacks, number of contributors, etc. with a bookmarkable URL.
Best regards,
M ;-)
Hi again!
According to CIA, TikiWiki has 15 + 172 others = 187 contributors.
But for Ohloh, "Over the entire history of the project, 169 developers have contributed."
I think it's because CIA also takes into account the CVS stuff. We still have our stable BRANCH-1-9 on CVS, while the newer BRANCH-1-10 is on SVN.
I wonder if I should add the CVS to the enlistements? But I am worried it'll mess up the stats.
Anyways... I won't do anything for now and until someone has some good advice.
Best regards,
M ;-)
Hello!
I am wondering about the 3 indications on our project page
PHP License may conflict with GPL
Apache Software License may conflict with GPL
Mozilla Public License 1.0 may conflict with GPL
TikiWiki is LGPL and, AFAIK, doesn't contain any GPL code. I grepped the code and see references to fckeditor being GPL. But it is triple-licensed GPL, LGPL and MPL and thus, it's not an issue.
Is there something I am missing? How can I get this resolved?
Thanks!
M ;-)
Here: http://www.ohloh.net/contributors/00000000/invites/new
So I'll have a log of whom I have invited.
Thanks!
M ;-)
Some typos here: http://www.ohloh.net/tags/cateories http://www.ohloh.net/tags/contentmangementsystem
Thanks!
M ;-)
Hi Robin!
Assuming nobody will have a cow, may I suggest a switch to "total contributors" in the widget?
Assuming it's fairly easy to implement, we can always rollback if it provokes a debate, which I doubt.
Best regards,
M ;-)