r1295006 and openhub

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
https://www.openhub.net/p/subversion/commits?sort=oldest

It seems openhub have a problem distinguishing branches and copies :-)

Should we bother them about this? Some contributors are severely
underrepresented. I wonder if this problem affects other projects as well.

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:59:36 +0000:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20:20 +0100:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:25:54AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:20:16PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 22:36:39 +0000:
> > > > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> > > > > > Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> > > > > > are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> > > > > > at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
> > > > 
> > > > I've reached out to a Black Duck contact of Erik's.  (Thanks Erik.)
> > > 
> > > Thank you Daniel!
> > 
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > Was there any follow-up on this?
> > 
> 
> My email was ack'ed on the same day (by a human, not an autoresponse),
> but I have heard nothing since.  I just followed up with a ping.  Will
> keep you posted.

It is being worked on.

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20:20 +0100:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:25:54AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:20:16PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 22:36:39 +0000:
> > > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> > > > > Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> > > > > are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> > > > > at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
> > > 
> > > I've reached out to a Black Duck contact of Erik's.  (Thanks Erik.)
> > 
> > Thank you Daniel!
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Was there any follow-up on this?
> 

My email was ack'ed on the same day (by a human, not an autoresponse),
but I have heard nothing since.  I just followed up with a ping.  Will
keep you posted.

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:25:54AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:20:16PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 22:36:39 +0000:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> > > > Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> > > > are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> > > > at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
> > 
> > I've reached out to a Black Duck contact of Erik's.  (Thanks Erik.)
> 
> Thank you Daniel!

Hi Daniel,

Was there any follow-up on this?

https://www.openhub.net/p/subversion still states the first commit
to the project happened in Feb 2012, while our repository history
actually does back all the way to Karl Fogel's first commit in
March 2000: https://svn.apache.org/r836421

The blackduck openhub stats are missing out on 12 years of history
and are severely misrepresenting a lot of people's contributions.

Thanks,
Stefan

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:20:16PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 22:36:39 +0000:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> > > Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> > > are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> > > at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
> 
> I've reached out to a Black Duck contact of Erik's.  (Thanks Erik.)

Thank you Daniel!

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 22:36:39 +0000:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> > Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> > are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> > at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).

I've reached out to a Black Duck contact of Erik's.  (Thanks Erik.)

Re: r1295006 and openhub

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 23:22:22 +0200:
> Reading our openhub stats for fun I noticed that the stats
> are totally screwed. It seems they stop scanning our history
> at r1295006 (the infamous commit that changed our trunk's copy ID).
> https://www.openhub.net/p/subversion/commits?sort=oldest
> 
> It seems openhub have a problem distinguishing branches and copies :-)
> 
> Should we bother them about this? Some contributors are severely
> underrepresented.

*sigh* The cat is out of the bag.  That commit was no accident; it was
a plot by me to inflate my openhub stats. ;-)

Seriously, though, my apologies to those contributors underrepresented in
consequence of that commit.

> I wonder if this problem affects other projects as well.

It would also affect projects that replace trunk with a branch, with
�svnmucc rm trunk cp HEAD branches/2.0 trunk� (or, if the project devs
are unaware of svnmucc, by doing the same thing in two commits).

I would say that yes, dropping them a line to the effect of "You don't
handle certain histories correctly" would be worthwhile.  Do we have
a contact at ohloh/openhub/blackduck?

(I assume I ought to volunteer for writing that email, so I do.)

Daniel