From: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, calvinwan@gmail.com, szeder.dev@gmail.com,
phillip.wood123@gmail.com, chooglen@google.com, avarab@gmail.com,
sandals@crustytoothpaste.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/1] unit tests: Add a project plan document
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:11:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <owly7crl95c3.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqedlu7yn2.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> I can think of some other metrics to add to the comparison, namely:
>>
>> 1. Age (how old is the framework)
>> 2. Size in KLOC (thousands of lines of code)
>> 3. Adoption rate (which notable C projects already use this framework?)
>> 4. Project health (how active are its developers?)
>>
>> I think for 3 and 4, we could probably mine some data out of GitHub
>> itself.
>
> Great additions (if we are mere users do we care much about #2,
> though?).
Sorry, I forgot to add why I think these metrics are useful: I think
they give some signal about how much influence/respect the framework has
in our industry, with the assumption that the influence/respect
positively correlates with how "good" (sound architecture, well-written,
easy to use, simple to understand, etc) the framework is. For the
frameworks hosted in GitHub, perhaps the number of GitHub Stars is a
better estimate for measuring influence/respect.
That said, I think #2 (measuring KLOC) would still be useful to know
(and is easy enough with tools like tokei [1]), mainly for the scenario
where the framework becomes abandonware. Certainly, a framework with a
lower KLOC count would have a lower maintenance burden if we ever need
to step in to help maintain the framework ourselves. To me this is one
reason why I like the idea of using Phillip Wood's framework [2]
(granted, it is currently only a proof of concept).
[1] https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/tokei
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/c902a166-98ce-afba-93f2-ea6027557176@gmail.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-30 0:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-17 23:56 [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] Add an external testing library for unit tests steadmon
2023-05-17 23:56 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] common-main: split common_exit() into a new file steadmon
2023-05-18 17:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-14 23:38 ` Splitting common-main (Was: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] common-main: split common_exit() into a new file) Josh Steadmon
2023-07-15 0:34 ` Splitting common-main Junio C Hamano
2023-08-14 13:09 ` Splitting common-main (Was: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] common-main: split common_exit() into a new file) Jeff Hostetler
2023-05-17 23:56 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/4] unit tests: Add a project plan document steadmon
2023-05-18 13:13 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-18 20:15 ` Glen Choo
2023-05-24 17:40 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-06-01 9:19 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-17 23:56 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] Add C TAP harness steadmon
2023-05-18 13:15 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-18 20:50 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-05-17 23:56 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] unit test: add basic example and build rules steadmon
2023-05-18 13:32 ` Phillip Wood
2023-06-09 23:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/1] Add a project document for adding unit tests Josh Steadmon
2023-06-09 23:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/1] unit tests: Add a project plan document Josh Steadmon
2023-06-13 22:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-06-30 22:18 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-06-29 19:42 ` Linus Arver
2023-06-29 20:48 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-06-30 19:31 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-06 18:24 ` Glen Choo
2023-07-06 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-06 22:48 ` Glen Choo
2023-06-30 21:33 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-06-29 21:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-06-30 0:11 ` Linus Arver [this message]
2023-06-30 14:07 ` Phillip Wood
2023-06-30 18:47 ` K Wan
2023-06-30 22:35 ` Josh Steadmon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=owly7crl95c3.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com \
--to=linusa@google.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=calvinwan@gmail.com \
--cc=chooglen@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
--cc=steadmon@google.com \
--cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).