Forum Posts

[edited] Sorry, read your message wrong the first time and see now that you added the reverse alias for us. I see now that rbowers is listed in the "will be attributed to" list, but just not in the ... [More] "Contributions by" list. I'd missed that detail because we wanted the attribution to go the other way: rbowers -> ronaldbowers I'm not sure I see the committer vs ohloh ID distinction, though, because most of our other "Contributions by" aliases are most definitely not pointing to ohloh IDs. Moreover, rbowers is a "committer" as shown by the 68 commits so I'd think he should be listed, no? [Less]

Hi! The problem isn't credit but, rather, that "rbowers" does not show up in the list of commit usernames that can be aliased to another name even though 68 commits are found, I'd like to alias ... [More] "rbowers" to his later "ronaldbowers" name but cannot because it's not listed. Cheers! --Sean [Less]

Wow, been a while since I've gotten to report (what seems to be) a bug! Thanks for all the great features! On to our problem, it seems that the Aliases list for BRL-CAD is missing a username that ... [More] Ohloh sees in other places: https://www.ohloh.net/p/brlcad/contributors?query=rbowers&sort=latest_commit This user is not listed when we go to https://www.ohloh.net/p/brlcad/aliases/new The only hint I have is that the user's commits under that old username are to a portion of our source tree that no longer exists (hierarchy was rearranged several years ago). Cheers! Sean [Less]

gwoo, question regarding the new tool.. I see on the project search page that there are about 438,000 projects indexed, but the new repository comparison counts only add up to about 234,000. What's the discrepancy? Cheers!

Hah, now that is totally awesome! And the results are even somewhat surprising... THANK YOU! That is exactly what I was looking for. Mind if I post to /. ? :) Cheers! Sean

You've undoubtedly considered this already and maybe have done it already somewhere, but I wanted to offer up the suggestion to add a new tool to Ohloh similar to the existing ones for comparing ... [More] projects and languages: a new tool for comparing version control systems in use. I couldn't find anyone else suggesting the feature on the forums, nor could I find any really good information elsewhere online. I was specifically looking for VCS trend information, whether a snapshot comparison or stats over time. This could be valuable for a variety of purposes, if only to compare the usage popularity of different systems. Cheers! Sean [Less]

Okay, I've investigated the differences between the CVS and SVN enlistment, compared them to my notes before the SVN enlistment, and think I now have a pretty good grasp of all the differences ... [More] possibly even explaining the 7% increase (34 years) of overall effort that is reported for the SVN repository. None of the differences are of concern, fortunately (kudos!), but I did think you might find the differences interesting as they pertain to how Ohloh indexes and attributes commits for an enlistment -- there are some rather interesting differences between having a CVS repository and an SVN repository. In brief, the things I noted are as follows: SVN property changes are being attributed as source code changes. This is possibly the bulk of the 7% difference as it adds minimally a +1-1 change to every commit due to the CVS revision numbers being stored as SVN properties (an option we opted for during cvs2svn). With 28700 SVN commits, that's minimally -28700+28700 line changes being counted. Ohloh does a much better job at collapsing related CVS commits into one change event (presumably based on time and commit message) than cvs2svn does. Ohloh counted 27661 CVS commits and reports approximately 28689 SVN commits. I would presume you're taking SVN commits "as-is" given SVN performs atomic commit transactions, so you don't need/try to collapse them. Might be useful to do the same collapse for all repository types based on the log/timeframe for consistency, though it's certainly a minor difference. Perhaps entirely unrelated to another change that was just made, but Ohloh now correctly "finds" our BSD licensed files. All of our file counts doubled perfectly except for our BSD license count. Before with CVS, it counted 2 (which was quite wrong). Now it counts 171 files, presuming Ohloh's BSD detection didn't change this week. That number is a bit higher than my back-of-the-envelope quick grep counts, but it's within the ballpark. As already noted, it's interesting that the SVN commit log messages all seem to include a trailing newline whereas the CVS commit log messages do not. The "Lines Modified" metric was one that I really couldn't account for but did find it exceptionally interesting in the magnitude of the differences. Most of the user commit counts were about +3% and line change counts were about +- 3% different. Would hypothesize that the difference is simply the uncollapsed SVN commits. The only one that raised an eyebrow was where one user (johnranderson) gained an astonishing +269K lines credited to them, where everyone else was over or under by a few thousand lines or less for the SVN enlistment. Cheers! Sean [Less]

Well, Andy -- thank you very much for your help. The enlistment looks to be complete and a complete success. One interesting side-effect, though.. If I recall correctly, our CVS enlistment report ... [More] summarized to 485 years of effort while the SVN repo is coming in at roughly 510 years of effort. Granted the SVN update includes a commit that touched all files (copyright update), but I doubt that counts for 25 years of effort.. ;-) It's also interesting to note that the SVN and CVS commit log messages handle the commit log message differently (or was changed via cvs2svn). The SVN commits seem to all have a trailing newline, the CVS ones do not. That still wouldn't likely account for the total effort difference either. Is there a way to compare the difference between the two enlistments, why one would be greater/less than the other -- particularly since the commit counts do seem right overall. Cheers! Sean [Less]

Ahh...so close. As (it says) you are already aware, our SVN enlistment failed on step 2 after several hours of processing. If it's something we can review/fix on our end, please let me know. ... [More] Otherwise, I'll be (patiently and quietly) waiting to see the results. :-) Cheers! Sean [Less]

So far everything is going well and I should be adding the svn enlistment in a few hours as soon as the upload to Sourceforge completes. We've had several relatively minor issues to sort out in our ... [More] repository on the whole, a few bugs in cvs2svn uncovered that seem to be unique to the age of our CVS repository, but no show stoppers (just tedium). Our log, checkout, and spot tests have all passed just leaving ohloh enlistment comparisons remaining. I've just had to perform the conversion a couple times over to ensure mime types, permissions, and deal with one checkout validation failure. Having all .tcl files import with the mime-type of application/x-tcl and Subversion treating it as binary was really not helpful.. :-) I'll drop a note when the enlistment completes, hopefully with good news. Either way, thanks again for your advice and support. Cheers! Sean p.s. For others running across this thread, our conversion efforts are being documented here on our website. [Less]