This one time, at band camp, Anthony Towns said:
>
> I wouldn't say that's particularly quickly; but given the varying release
> times, it's a bit hard to really tell. Correcting for that:
>
> release date days s.p.d p.p.d sg.p.a pg.p.a
> hamm 1998-07-24
> slink 1999-03-09 228 2.04 3.27 75% 89%
> potato 2000-08-14 524 2.04 3.09 43% 46%
> woody 2002-07-20 705 3.65 6.22 42% 48%
> sarge 2005-06-06 1052 3.34 6.58 20% 23%
> etch 2007-04-08 671 2.23 4.26 9% 10%
> lenny 2009-02-14 678 2.81 6.28 10% 12%
>
> {s,p}.p.d = (net) new source/i386 packages per day.
>
> {s,p}g.p.a = annualised growth in source/i386 packages; so eg the 42/49%
> growth in slink gets annualised to 75/89% since it took under 8 months
> to release slink. Formula is (100%+growth)^(365/days)-100%
>
> Dropping from 75% to 40% to 20% to 10% in source package growth per year
> is a bit sad -- but it's certainly interesting that the (net) number of
> new source packages per day has stayed fairly constant.
You're mixing apples and oranges, but I assume you know that. The growth
rate has been constant, but the percentage growth falls as the total
increases. Calling the latter development 'sad' ignores the truth that
it hasn't slowed down, but has been consistently high since woody.
You're also making some implicit assumptions about what is available -
are there really 9855 new projects that should have been added to Debian
last year that weren't? This is based on
(13601 * .8) - (2.81 * 365)
(80% increase in total source packages) - (actual increase in source packages)
I can't imagine that's the case, really.
Cheers,
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sgran@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature