6 ms·
No need to script! You can use Google's BigQuery with GitHub's data. Some documentation is here: https://www.githubarchive.org/ https://www.githubarchive.org/
by gjtorikian 10y ago
No need to script! You can use Google's BigQuery with GitHub's data. Some documentation is here: https://www.githubarchive.org/ https://www.githubarchive.org/
A `PushEvent` is fired for every open source repository that has `master` updated:
```
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (
TABLE_DATE_RANGE([githubarchive:day.],
TIMESTAMP('2017-03-01'),
TIMESTAMP('2017-03-31')
))
WHERE type = 'PushEvent'
```
It's over 19 million!
- zokier 10y agoDon't you need something like GROUP BY repo.id in there too?
- xfalcox 10y agoYes. By running: SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT repo.id) FROM [githubarchive:month.201701] WHERE type = 'PushEvent' I got 1896676, so almost 2M distinct repos with commits in last January.
- lucaspiller 10y agoJust a heads up that 'last January' would generally refer to January of the previous year, not the current year. http://english.stackexchange.com/a/43000 http://english.stackexchange.com/a/43000
- tohuw 10y agoThat's nonsense. I would never assume "Last January" means 2016. I've never met anyone who talks the way this arbitrary "rule" implies, either. Human language is not computer language; trying to force standardization of relative terms is rarely useful. We interpret by context.
- ukyrgf 10y ago"Last January" would definitely mean January 2016.
- jasonkester 10y agoNo, he's correct. To a native English speaker, "since January" would mean "in the last 4 months", whereas "since last January" would mean "in the last 16 months" (assuming it's April now). There's no ambiguity there. It's just how the language works.
- andyjohnson0 10y agoI'm a native English speaker (lived all my life in the UK) and I interpret 'last January' as January 2017.
- mdpopescu 10y agoSo both "January" and "last January" mean the same thing? (Not a native speaker, but a programmer :D)
- slavik81 10y agoNot necessarily. Suppose Tim and Bob are having a conversation. Tim: "It's a little known fact that Woodrow Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles while ice skating on the royal pond." Bob: "That's clearly nonsense. The Treaty of Versailles was signed in June." It would be very different to say, "the Treaty of Versailles was signed last June." That would imply it was signed in June 2016, rather than June 1919.
- et-al 10y agoThey could mean the same thing depending on the speaker. "I saw that film last January." "I saw that film in January." As the other commenters have mentioned, "last January" may mean January 2016 for them, whereas for others it's 2017. The second example should be a definite 2017, except you always have your occasional smart alec [0]. I would disagree with jasonkester--there is ambiguity here. [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smart_aleck https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smart_aleck
- Someone 10y ago
- inimino 10y agoIf anything, "last" meaning "most recent" would be the most logical. However, "last January" meaning January of last year is a convention. Not everyone follows or knows it, but it does exist. Same for days of the week.
- EdSharkey 10y agoSo 'last' refers to the instance on the last complete cycle? It makes sense, but no one I know talks that way. What about 'this past', is that used to refer to the latest instance or is that also last complete cycle?
- jrobn 10y agoYour indirectly talking about the year. "January" is for the current year and "last January" would be last year. I would interpret "this past" as most recent thing from the current. So "this past January" would, to me, sound like the most recent January (Jan 2017)
- EpicEng 10y agoIn my experience I have never heard someone use it that way. Ever.
- sdesol 10y agoFor those that don't follow Git hosting, it may not be obvious, but GitHub's mind share, is truly massive. If you want to compete head to head with GitHub, you'll basically, have to wait for them to REALLY screw up. If you want any sort of chance, you'll have to approach things, from a totally different angle. Make code reviews your number one priority. Be the place that people want to put their code in, because they can review code, significantly easier on your site, as opposed to GitHub's. Make management your number one priority. Be the place that can provide managers with code metrics and analytics, that GitHub can't. And so on. To take mind share away from GitHub, you'll have to treat Git hosting, as a secondary thing. You can't be a derivative of GitHub and expect to compete, and succeed. Like Snapchat, Instagram (before acquisition) and others, you can only compete with Facebook, from a completely different angle. If you can provide a novel solution, that cannot be easily duplicated by GitHub and others, getting users to store code with you, will be significantly easier. With GitLab, Gitea, Gogs, etc., Git hosting has turned into a commodity product, which means you'll need to focus on providing value based on the code stored and not the management of the code.
- uiri 10y agoMake code reviews your number one priority. Be the place that people want to put their code in, because they can review code, significantly easier on your site, as opposed to GitHub's. This isn't really a high bar. Doing more than one iteration of code review with GitHub's tooling is a complete mess. In addition to that, both PR comments and Commit comments exist which can be extremely confusing if you do make one when you meant to make the other. There is already other tooling which leverage GitHub's APIs to provide a nicer interface for code review.