Re: The value of LilyPond, according to Ohloh

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I think the number is way off.  AFAICS at
>>> http://www.ohloh.net/p/lilypond/enlistments?page=2, 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.
>
> Let's not forget that some of the red tape we have today is there for
> good reason.

There are always good reasons.  One reason is that single persons are
not a dependable resource.  As to "most of it": in the number of commits
(naturally misleading as changes tend to be larger in the starting
stage) it is about a third:

git shortlog -ns|awk '{n+=$1;if(NR<20)print};END{print n}'
  6381  Han-Wen Nienhuys
  3092  Graham Percival
  2474  Jan Nieuwenhuizen
  1270  John Mandereau
  1224  Francisco Vila
   910  Reinhold Kainhofer
   782  Joe Neeman
   574  Werner Lemberg
   526  Neil Puttock
   500  Trevor Daniels
   488  Carl D. Sorensen
   415  Heikki Junes
   409  Till Rettig
   379  Jean-Charles Malahieude
   352  Patrick McCarty
   286  Mats Bengtsson
   172  Valentin Villenave
   170  David Kastrup
   166  James Lowe
22101

I have to admit that I was surprised at the rather small contribution I
have made according to that metric.  Of course my own vanity wants to
ascribe some of that to red tape.

-- 
David Kastrup