Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next stats (Was: Linux 3.12-rc1) | From | "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <> | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:23:41 -0700 |
| |
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:50 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:08:11 -0400 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > So it's been two weeks, and the merge window for 3.12 is now closed. > > As usual, the executive friendly graph is at > http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html :-) > > (No merge commits counted, next-20130903 was the linux-next based on v3.11) > > Commits in v3.12-rc1 (relative to v3.11): 9474 (v3.11-rc11: 9494) > Commits in next-20130903: 8891 (next-20130701: 8929) > Commits with the same SHA1: 7991 ( 7670) > Commits with the same patch_id: 472 (1) ( 759) > Commits with the same subject line: 70 (1) ( 55) > > (1) not counting those in the lines above. > > So commits in -rc1 that were "in" next-20130903: 8533 90.1% (8484 89.4%) > Commits in -rc1 that were not in next-20120722: 941 9.9% (1010 10.6% > > So better than last time, but it would be still nice to figure out where > the last lot came from. I have the "git log --oneline --no-walk" list if > someone wants them. > > Some breakdown of that list: > > Top ten first word of commit summary: > > 57 net > 53 mips > 49 drm > 47 [scsi] > 23 perf > 23 nfs > 20 cifs > 19 nvme > 18 vfs > 17 arm > > Top ten authors: > > 33 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > 21 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> > 20 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > 18 James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com> > 17 Jon Mason <jon.mason@intel.com> > 17 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> > 16 Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> > 16 Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com> > 15 Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com> > 14 Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> >
I'm totally confused by these stats..
The target-pending/for-next pull had ~30 commits with the term 'target' in the first word of the commit summary, and yours truly had 40 commits merged.
Is there a reason why these would not be showing up in the above..?
--nab
| |