[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The value of LilyPond, according to Ohloh

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: The value of LilyPond, according to Ohloh
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:47:42 -0200

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I think the number is way off.  AFAICS at
>>, they counted all
>> stable branches as separate.
>> Last time I looked lilypond was around 100k lines of code (a quick
>> look says it 200k now; I suspect the GNU headers as a cause). 390 man
>> years looks exaggeratedl, since I wrote most of it (at least before
>> 2007), and it took me much less than 300 years.
> Your output is likely not average for the industry.  Writing and
> committing a half-hour change took you just half an hour instead of five
> hours of red tape from you and three hours of red tape each from three
> other persons.  We are getting there, but that's not what you have been
> working with.

In the early days (the "good old days") we didn't have a regression
test (I checked in the first version in may 2006). Beyond all kinds of
interesting stuff, I also committed several half hour changes that had
me staring at gdb for hours (and sometimes days) on end. They were
partly to blame on the nightly sessions with Jan that involved
drinking whiskey besides hacking, put some of them were really hard,
and I today I wonder how I ever kept things running without having any
sort of testing framework.

Let's not forget that some of the red tape we have today is there for
good reason.

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]