3 ms·

Since we are doing deja vu, I uploaded some new metrics that better highlights how insane GitLab's churn rate is. http://imgur.com/a/4uaSR http://imgur.com/a/4

by sdesol 10y ago

Since we are doing deja vu, I uploaded some new metrics that better highlights how insane GitLab's churn rate is. http://imgur.com/a/4uaSR http://imgur.com/a/4uaSR What's really interesting is the number of contributors.

StavrosK 10y ago
What does this show, exactly? I'm not familiar with this tool and there are no labels.
- sdesol 10y ago
  It basically shows how much has changed in GitLab's master branch in the last 30 days. The main metrics is cumulative code churn (lines added, changed, and deleted that does not involve comment or blank lines). In the first picture it shows the churn was about 24,000 if you don't include merge commits (nomerge:true) and if you ignore changes that were the result of adding/deleting files (action:M). The numbers with the avatars are basically. First column is number of commits. Second column is cumulative code churn. Third column is percentage of churn that does not involve blank/comment lines. The second and third pictures shows the code churn as grouped by top level directories. In GitLab's case the most churn occurred in the app directory. And if you drill down to app/assets/javascripts, you'll see the following: http://imgur.com/B2GE1yk http://imgur.com/B2GE1yk The charts and metrics basically shows GitLab's code base is changing a lot. This is the churn for Gogs in the last 30 days. http://imgur.com/ZmzyMsz http://imgur.com/ZmzyMsz And I guess the question is, is the high rate of change a contributing factor for increased security issues? Statistically speaking, the more code, the more chances for something being missed during code reviews. It's important to note the metrics isn't saying the quality is bad. It's just saying a lot is changing.
  - sytse 10y ago
    A lot is changing since GitLab is rapidly developing. If you have more churn with the same amount of developers that might lead to increased security issues. We've been quickly adding paid developers over the last year, so I'm not sure what that ratio did. Also, some of the churn is due to refactorings, although these are risky in themselves over the long run they increase code quality.

by sdesol 10y ago

StavrosK 10y ago

What does this show, exactly? I'm not familiar with this tool and there are no labels.

sdesol 10y ago
It basically shows how much has changed in GitLab's master branch in the last 30 days. The main metrics is cumulative code churn (lines added, changed, and deleted that does not involve comment or blank lines). In the first picture it shows the churn was about 24,000 if you don't include merge commits (nomerge:true) and if you ignore changes that were the result of adding/deleting files (action:M). The numbers with the avatars are basically. First column is number of commits. Second column is cumulative code churn. Third column is percentage of churn that does not involve blank/comment lines. The second and third pictures shows the code churn as grouped by top level directories. In GitLab's case the most churn occurred in the app directory. And if you drill down to app/assets/javascripts, you'll see the following: http://imgur.com/B2GE1yk http://imgur.com/B2GE1yk The charts and metrics basically shows GitLab's code base is changing a lot. This is the churn for Gogs in the last 30 days. http://imgur.com/ZmzyMsz http://imgur.com/ZmzyMsz And I guess the question is, is the high rate of change a contributing factor for increased security issues? Statistically speaking, the more code, the more chances for something being missed during code reviews. It's important to note the metrics isn't saying the quality is bad. It's just saying a lot is changing.
- sytse 10y ago
  A lot is changing since GitLab is rapidly developing. If you have more churn with the same amount of developers that might lead to increased security issues. We've been quickly adding paid developers over the last year, so I'm not sure what that ratio did. Also, some of the churn is due to refactorings, although these are risky in themselves over the long run they increase code quality.