the metrics show a LOC of -432 lines currently while the last update is reported as "completed" (the update before did also produce this result while the initial upload produced correct results). LOC should be around 10k. Also the project age is reported as "about 1 month", it should be 3+ years.
I fixed some problems on our system and ran a fresh update. The new report is ready, and it looks much better. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
thanks. The calculated numbers are probably correct now. Except for one thing: the LOC has doubled up. I guess thats because the CVS repo contains the same code as the SVN repo until the point where I moved the project over to SVN. New code is only in SVN. I have added both repos because SVN alone gives a wrong project age since all old code is stamped with the date of the conversion (summer 2006). Thus the project would appear much younger that it actually is...
I am aware that this is my mistake and probably very hard to figure for your system. But can you see any way to solve this somehow? Or should I better remove the CVS repo and live with the "wrong" age?
You've reached the basic question that a lot of projects that moved from CVS to Subversion have been asking.
Some projects were lucky enough to be able to use something like cvs2svn to migrate their old CVS history into Subversion, but it's probably too late for you to do that now.
Personally, I feel like the long history and a steady train of developer activity is much more important than the absolute total lines of code, but others may disagree.
This is a pretty common problem, and yes, we are putting together some ideas about how to resolve this issue. There are a variety of ways to go about it. Our system has the ability to detect identical files, so if you copied your files from CVS to Subversion without modifying the file contents, we might be able to recognize the old files and make a seamless transition from one repository to the next. This is all theoretical -- we need time to come up with a design and do the actual work. It's on our minds, but I can't promise when we'll get to it.
thanks for the explanation. Yeah, its indeed to late to re-migrate properly. That would be a pain. I agree with your opinion and go with correct age rather than LOC. Since the more new code is added, the less impact the old code will have... so the problem should slowly disappear as time passes. And, well, more LOC makes it more expensive, doesn't it? 8-)
Just some food for thought: it would be easy (and a one-time task) for me to specify the revision number and date of when the conversion took place. If that would help the system.
anyway. Thanks, Stephan