Preview of the analysis of Liferay

Today we’re presenting a preview of our analysis on Liferay at the Liferay Symposium Spain. We’ve analyzed Liferay public git and Jira repositories, which provide a good view of the public development activities around the project. Liferay Inc., the company, maintains another ticketing system for their customers as well, which we have not analyzed. However, all changes to the code seem to be done in the public git repository, and a large part of the activity with respect to ticket management (if not all) goes through the public Jira system at some point (even if initiated in the in-company tracking system).

Summary of the report
Summary of the Liferay report

In this preview, we’re including some charts and data similar to other analysis we’ve done in the past (such as the OpenStack Folsom report, or the report on Zentyal). But we’re also including some new stuff, such as some charts on how long does it take to close tickets (for every month in the analyzed period), or the activity in the git repository by module (directory).

Yo can now run directly to browse the preview of our report, the charts and data, or go on reading some details about it in this post.

Continue reading “Preview of the analysis of Liferay”

Tomorrow at the LSWC’12

LSWC’12 is the most important business and professional event on Free Software ever held in Spain. And Bitergia will present there our strategy about software metrics and some examples of our basic reports for projects like Zentyal and LibrePlan, that they will also be presented there just after our speech. In the presentation we will also cover the tools and methodologies we used to build the reports, our transparency aim and we hope to join other companies and people around FOSS world as usual to share visions and experiences.

Join us tomorrow at 16:00 in the Business track.

For those interested, the slides of the presentation are available.

Bitergia LSWC12 Slides
Bitergia Development metrics Slides

Presentation at the LibreOffice Conference

In a few hours I’m presenting a preview of our upcoming report on LibreOffice at the LibreOffice Conference. The talk, “The (quantitative) history of LibreOffice“, shows some of the results of the report we’re preparing at Bitergia after analyzing both the git and Bugzilla repositories of LibreOffice. The git repository includes the history of the project back to the beggining of OpenOffice.org in 2000) and its Bugzilla repository, which Bugzilla has tickets since LibeOffice was established, in September 2010.

Preview of the report on LibreOffice
Preview of the report on LibreOffice

For those interested, the slides of the presentation are available.

Slides for the presentation at OpenOffice Conference
Slides for the presentation at OpenOffice Conference

As usual, any comment would be welcome (both on the presentation and the preview of the report).

Measuring free software development (presentation at IRILL)

Today, I’m presenting at IRILL (Paris) on “Measuring free software development“. The base of the talk is well known: most free / open source software projects have publicly available repositories with many details about how their activity. This given, how can we all (users, developers, integrators, etc.) profit from it? What kind of stuff can be measured using this data? Because you know, what you cannot measure, you cannot improve (or at least, know you’ve improved). And here is where MetricsGrimoire and Bitergia come to the rescue.

Presentation at IRILL
Presentation at IRILL: Measuring free software development

Continue reading “Measuring free software development (presentation at IRILL)”

Bicho: the bug tracking analysing tool

Bicho was born during the Summer of 2007. Its main goal was to develop a tool that automatically could retrieve information from the Sourceforge trackers. At that point in time there were not tools to retrieve information from such data sources and we, in LibreSoft, decided to start working on this. Since then, and mainly due to requirements from research projects, Bugzilla (initially KDE, GNOME and Apache ones) and Jira support was added.

With the creation of the spin-off Bitergia from the research group, we agreed that Bicho was getting old and it needed another extra set of functionality (In 2007 GitHub or Allura did not exist!). The first step was the creation of a neutral place for everyone where the data mining tools could attract developers and users, as explained in previous posts and named as Metrics Grimoire.

So, together with the community of Metrics Grimoire, we have provided support for the GitHub, Allura, Google Code and Launchpad trackers.

Continue reading “Bicho: the bug tracking analysing tool”

Basic analysis of Zentyal

Zentyal is a free / open source system to manage IT infrastructure, from Internet access to email and network security from a single interface. We at Bitergia have used it as a case example, showing a basic analysis of its source code management repository (git) and its most important mailing lists (managed with mailman). For git, we had a backlog of over 7 years of data, while for mailing lists we had about 2 years. With this information we have produced some basic interactive charts (similar those that were presented in a previous post). [See complete analysis]

[Update, 2012-10-04 11:45: You can also have a look at the slides I used for the talk at the Zentyal Summit where we presented this, in the wider context of how can development metrics help to take decisions about free software]

Zentyal analysis
Screenshot of the Zentyal analysis

The rest of this post discusses some details of the charts, and how they can be used to better understand the history of the project.

Continue reading “Basic analysis of Zentyal”

Methodology used to analyze OpenStack repositories

Some days ago, we published a report on the making-off of OpenStack Folsom and Essex. Now, we are publishing some details about the methodology we followed, to clarify how we retrieved data from the OpenStack repositories, and how we analyzed it.
To bootstrap the study, we started with the information maintained by the project itself:

  • Source code management repositories (version control system, in this case supported by git). There is a list of repositories at the OpenStack GitHub webpage listing 35 repositories at the moment of this post.
  • Issue tracking system (ticketing, bug tracking system, in this case Launchpad). The Launchpad webpage for OpenStack lists 23 projects at the moment of this post.
List of git repositories
List of git repositories considered for the reports, as seen in the reports themselves.

We didn’t consider all of these repositories, but tried to focus on those that seem to represent the most prominent part of OpenStack:

  • Selection of git repositories (the whole list is available in the left column of the main webpage of the reports):
  1. “Core” projects: Nova, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Quantum, Cinder
  2. “Libraries”: Openstack-common, Python-novaclient, Python-swiftclient, Python-glanceclient, Python-keystoneclient, Python-quantumclient, Python-cinderclient
  3. “Gating”: Tempest
  4. Documentation: Openstack-manuals
  • Selection of Lauchpad trackers: given that it is easy to retrieve all of the information from a Launchpad account, all the information about all the tickets in all of the trackers was retrieved. At some points of the report, we made later a difference between tickets in different trackers, such as distinguishing between core and non core projects.

In both cases, data sources were mined using the Metrics Grimoire toolset, and more specifically, CVSAnalY for the git repositories and Bicho for the Launchpad trackers.

Continue reading “Methodology used to analyze OpenStack repositories”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑