OpenBSD 2014 by the numbers(tedunangst.com)
tedunangst.com
OpenBSD 2014 by the numbers
http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/OpenBSD-2014-by-the-numbers
13 comments
I wonder if keeping CVS is not one of the smartest things the OpenBSD project does now. I'm being somewhat facetious but hear me out.
Workflow is as much about people and process as it is about tools. The tools simply serve the people and processes.
This is a project that has consistently hit high quality releases, on a predetermined schedule, for coming up on two decades. That is unprecedented. I can't think of anything even remotely similar.
Version control is a tool for integrating change and managing releases. They are arguably one of the best projects at doing it. See the silliness of the "CVS?!" non sequitur yet?
So for people to drive by, who are statistically more likely part of the problems in the software industry, and critique the OpenBSD development process.. is at best cute and worst delusional.
Inadvertently(?) it functions as a litmus test.. if you care so much about this, you aren't really who we want to work with anyway, similar to the candidate fixated on his title in http://dtrace.org/blogs/eschrock/2012/08/14/engineer-anti-pa...
Workflow is as much about people and process as it is about tools. The tools simply serve the people and processes.
This is a project that has consistently hit high quality releases, on a predetermined schedule, for coming up on two decades. That is unprecedented. I can't think of anything even remotely similar.
Version control is a tool for integrating change and managing releases. They are arguably one of the best projects at doing it. See the silliness of the "CVS?!" non sequitur yet?
So for people to drive by, who are statistically more likely part of the problems in the software industry, and critique the OpenBSD development process.. is at best cute and worst delusional.
Inadvertently(?) it functions as a litmus test.. if you care so much about this, you aren't really who we want to work with anyway, similar to the candidate fixated on his title in http://dtrace.org/blogs/eschrock/2012/08/14/engineer-anti-pa...
Yep. The OpenBSD devs seem to be fully conscious of this too. Like, when they first announced their fork of OpenSSL, and decided to use comic sans for the font. (http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/23orq0/libressl_open... -- "This page is scientifically designed to annoy web hipsters.")
As expected, that got a bunch of people talking about comic sans, instead of OpenSSL, and acted as a pretty good filter for serious programmers.
...which apparently I've also just fallen on the wrong side of. Darn.
As expected, that got a bunch of people talking about comic sans, instead of OpenSSL, and acted as a pretty good filter for serious programmers.
...which apparently I've also just fallen on the wrong side of. Darn.
>I wonder if keeping CVS is not one of the smartest things the OpenBSD project does now.
Given that OpenBSD is supposed to be a security-oriented OS, it's slightly weird that they are using a version control system that does not guarantee that what you put in the repo actually stays there, unchanged. Git guarantees that.
> They are arguably one of the best projects at doing it.
What makes you think that?
Given that OpenBSD is supposed to be a security-oriented OS, it's slightly weird that they are using a version control system that does not guarantee that what you put in the repo actually stays there, unchanged. Git guarantees that.
> They are arguably one of the best projects at doing it.
What makes you think that?
1) Repo security is a hard proposition. Using git with an ostensibly(SHA-1) immutable history doesn't imply security. git repo integrity is cool, and I'll just point to interesting discussion of attacks and mitigation in http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/git-horror-story.
I'll end my debating with the fact that there is room for improvement.
2) Releasing on time, of high quality, for nearly two decades. Development process.. not that it is some ultimate code or product.
I'll end my debating with the fact that there is room for improvement.
2) Releasing on time, of high quality, for nearly two decades. Development process.. not that it is some ultimate code or product.
Makes sense, thanks for the perspective.
> I understand this is just a funny page with some metrics, but seriously calling people who added most LOC the most “productive” developers is somewhat disingenious.
This sentence contradicts itself.
> Is there any current reason to still use CVS in 2015?
http://www.openbsd.org/opencvs/
This sentence contradicts itself.
> Is there any current reason to still use CVS in 2015?
http://www.openbsd.org/opencvs/
The funny thing is that even though they have OpenCVS in their source tree, they do not use it. It never took off and probably had too many bugs and issues.
Instead they are and have been using GNU CVS instead.
OpenCVS was linked to the normal build for a while but has been removed from it four years ago.
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/Makefil...
Instead they are and have been using GNU CVS instead.
OpenCVS was linked to the normal build for a while but has been removed from it four years ago.
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/Makefil...
> I understand this is just a funny page with some metrics, but seriously calling people who added most LOC the most “productive” developers is somewhat disingenious.
@bottom you can see the real productivity:
So it's been a really productive year.
(edit: updated to fix codeblock :) )
@bottom you can see the real productivity:
lines added 1192696
lines deleted 3484520
files added 2653
files deleted 9995
So it's been a really productive year.
(edit: updated to fix codeblock :) )
> Blowing up the codebase size is “net gain”. Maybe OpenBSD team knows something I don't, but I got a bad vibe from this report.
To be fair, I think the "net gain" there just means "net increase" not net gain in the sense of a positive outcome. Plus, the top line deleters are removing way more than the top line adders. If I'm reading it right the total "net gain" was somewhere around negative 2.2 million lines.
The post lacks nuance, but it's really just supposed to be a fun little snapshot with some simple numbers.
To be fair, I think the "net gain" there just means "net increase" not net gain in the sense of a positive outcome. Plus, the top line deleters are removing way more than the top line adders. If I'm reading it right the total "net gain" was somewhere around negative 2.2 million lines.
The post lacks nuance, but it's really just supposed to be a fun little snapshot with some simple numbers.
> Is there any current reason to still use CVS in 2015?
Is there anything wrong with it?
Is there anything wrong with it?
> Is there any current reason to still use CVS in 2015
It works.
It works.
"The first commit of 2014 was to bump the copyright date, but then jsing jumped the gun and bumped it again at the end of the year, resulting in a copyright year one day shorter than the calendar year. Last commit, for the curious."
This is a level of pedantry that deserves respect.
This is a level of pedantry that deserves respect.
I understand this is just a funny page with some metrics, but seriously calling people who added most LOC the most “productive” developers is somewhat disingenious.
Is there any current reason to still use CVS in 2015?
Net gain. Blowing up the codebase size is “net gain”. Maybe OpenBSD team knows something I don't, but I got a bad vibe from this report.