lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:37:50 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next stats (Was: Linux 3.12-rc1)

Hi Nicholas,

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:23:41 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 15:50 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:08:11 -0400 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-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@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> >      21 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
> >      20 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> >      18 James Smart <james.smart@...lex.com>
> >      17 Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>
> >      17 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> >      16 Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
> >      16 Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
> >      15 Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
> >      14 Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.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..?

These are the lists if things that went into Linus' tree but were *not*
in linux-next prior to the merge window opening.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists