Today it is the day when Folsom, the new release of OpenStack, is publicly announced. We at Bitergia have been studying it for a while, and today we’re publishing our results as well. So, welcome to the report presenting the charts and numbers showing how OpenStack Folsom was built. For comparison, we’re also presenting a similar report on the previous major release of OpenStack, Essex, released on April, and with a similar release cycle of about six months. Both reports rely on data obtained from the source code management (git) and issue tracking (Launchpad) systems.
[Update, Oct 2 2012, 12:15 GMT. We’ve published some details on the methodology used to produce these reports]
[Update, Sep 28 2012, 16:00 GMT. We have included a new box in the main (summary) page of the study, showing the participation by companies in the 7 projects that OpenStack developers usually considers as “core OpenStack”, and which are those actually subject to the Folsom release cycle.]
The number of commits (changes to source code) is similar in both cases (and more when commits by bots is excluded), which tells about similar coding activity. The number of unique files touched is higher in the case of Essex which suggests that the work is getting more concentrated in certain parts of OpenStack. And the number of companies identified as contributors is quite similar.
However, when we come to a basic analysis of the community of developers (committers), it is easy to appreciate how it is growing, from 47 core developers in Essex to 71 in Folsom, and a similar increment for the whole population. The numbers of the issue tracking system show a similar story.
The list of companies contributing to OpenStack (measured by number of changes to the source code and by number of developers perming those changes) may be also of interest. Rackspace is the first contributor, with about a quarter of all commits, followed closely by RedHat, and at a certain distance by Nebula. Then, with comparable number of commits (but a very diverse number of developers involved) come HP, Isi, Cloudscaling, IBM, Sina, Canonical, Inktank and others.
The situation was more concentrated six months ago. For Essex, Rackspace amounted for most than half the commits. Redhat, Nebula and HP followed at a certain distance, and later came Canonical, Nicira, Citrix, Enovance, Cloudscaling, Isis and others. Looking at these numbers, it is clear that the OpenStack ecosystem of companies is now more leveled, with less dominance by Rackspace, and the clear emergence of other companies which seem to be betting hard to improve the code base.
The rest of this post deals with some methodological details about the report. You can have a look at them, and / or go straight to the full Folsom report, and its sections on general issues (analysis of commits and tickets), analysis per company, and analysis per project. Or you can compare them with those in the Essex report. You can also browse our previous posts, How companies are contributing to OpenStack, and Preview of the analysis of the upcoming OpenStack release which showed some preliminary results, and explained a bit the methodology for the companies analysis (but beware, both were done with only a fraction of the projects in OpenStack, so the data in the final report is much more complete).