Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I wonder, how is the release team measuring this? For the other ports that
>> you mention, you've pointed to concrete technical problems that are in line
>> with the previously-documented release qualification guidelines. kfreebsd,
>> OTOH, is only listed as having "insufficient install base". But what is
>> sufficient? http://popcon.debian.org/ shows numbers for kfreebsd-* that are
>> greater than a number of our ports.
>>
>
> The formulation is very poor indeed. What we are concerned about is
> that kFreeBSD basically have not improved since it became a "technical
> preview".
Out of curiosity, what metric are you using to quantify improvement?
One metric that may worth thinking about is usage growth.
Since the first kfreebsd release (Feb 2011), kfreebsd-amd64 usage [1]
has grown about 400% (100 * 80 popcon submissions / 20 popcon
submissions). kfreebsd-i386 [2] got a spike of adoption with squeeze
and has indeed sort of stagnated since then.
Looking at the popular architectures over the same timeframe, amd64
[3] grew at a very similar rate to kfreebsd-amd64 of about 333% (100 *
100,000 popcon submissions / 30,000 popcon submissions). i386 [4]
also stagnated over the same timeframe, and may be on the decline.
So, at least with respect to usage growth, similar results are seen
for the popular linux architectures and kfreebsd over the last 3
years.
As for absolute usage numbers, of course kfreebsd is much smaller than
the most popular linux archs, with their 20 years of growth (vice 3).
Assume debian had popcon in 1996 (3 years after the first linux
release), I doubt the absolute popcon numbers would differ much from
what we see today with kfreebsd. We would probably see somewhere in
the 100s of submissions, with (and this is really hand wavy) something
like 10x that number of actual installations.
Best wishes,
Mike
[1] http://popcon.debian.org/stat/sub-kfreebsd-amd64.png
[2] http://popcon.debian.org/stat/sub-kfreebsd-i386.png
[3] http://popcon.debian.org/stat/sub-amd64.png
[4] http://popcon.debian.org/stat/sub-i386.png
Reply to: