Ohloh now up-to-date

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

I've been working with the admins at Ohloh to get the OpenOffice
commit history reestablished.  It took a couple months, but we finally
have it working and current.

See:   https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice

Because of the repository change there is some double counting in the
overall code count.  But the records for commits should be accurate.

If you are a AOO committer and already have a Ohloh account, I invite
you to "claim" your ID here:

https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/contributors

You may have multiple ID's, from Hg as well as SVN.  You should be
able to claim them both and merge them into one aggregate identify.

If you don't have an account, then you can sign up for one here:

https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/new

Also, if you are somewhat knowledgeable about Ohloh, or want to learn,
and are a PPMC member, and want to help admin the account, then let me
know your ID and I'll add you as a "manager".

Finally, any objections if I add a link to this page to our website,
maybe to an Developer FAQ item on project statistics?

-Rob

Re: Ohloh now up-to-date

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob;
>
> It does look much better.
>
> --- Ven 6/1/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> Finally, any objections if I add a link to this page to our
>> website,
>> maybe to an Developer FAQ item on project statistics?
>>
>
> If you do so, please note that this is by no means an
> accurate analysis: It would appear like more than half
> of our files are still under the LGPL3.
>

The problem is it is not seeing that the SVN files are the same as the
old Hg files.  The repository has changed, user ID's have changed and
even the path has changed.

We could tell it to ignore the old Hg stuff, but then we would lose
the old commit data.

If you recall, we tried another solution before, starting a new AOO
project.  That gave accurate file data, including license. But it then
gives only the Apache history.

So it looks like we can either have accurate contribution data, or
accurate file data.

> Hmm. and it would be good to know what appears to be
> under the GPLv2 (configure stuff, I guess) but we
> will find out with rat sooner or later.
>

It could be a file that existed only previously in Hg.

> cheers,
>
> Pedro.

R: Ohloh now up-to-date

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

Hi Rob;

It does look much better.

--- Ven 6/1/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
...
> 
> Finally, any objections if I add a link to this page to our
> website,
> maybe to an Developer FAQ item on project statistics?
> 

If you do so, please note that this is by no means an
accurate analysis: It would appear like more than half
of our files are still under the LGPL3.

Hmm. and it would be good to know what appears to be
under the GPLv2 (configure stuff, I guess) but we
will find out with rat sooner or later.

cheers,

Pedro.