gvSIG is a is a geographic information system (GIS) software designed for capturing, storing, handling, analyzing and deploying any kind of referenced geographic information (more info in Wikipedia). It was born in 2004 as a project run by a public administration (the Regional Government of Valencia, Spain). 9 year later, gvSIG is a complete, mature platform, with a lively international development (and user) community. Many different products have been built based in, or forked from, it.
gvSIG development dashboard, by Bitergia
As usual, we have run our tools on it, producing our basic dashboard. For source code, we have analyzed the two main branches (roughly corresponding to 1.x and 2.x release lines) from their Subversion repository, for tickets we retrieved all we found, for mailing lists we got everything we could get from their Mailman repository.
Software forges are these kind of collaboration platforms that have been on our radar for years. Alvaro and I have been involved with their integration, deployment and maintenance during the last 5 years and now we are also helping some relevant communities to get the best from these products.
Apart from the work done with Allura integrating our analytics, we are very close to the FusionForge community. FusionForge is a free software application descendant of the forge implemented by the Sourceforge people a decade ago. We used it for a migration we performed for CENATIC (National Benchmark Centre for Open-Source ICT Application) during the last months of 2012. The aim of the migration was to move around 150 projects that were hosted in the infrastructure of the Morfeo’s community to a fresh instance of Fusionforge running on their own data center. The services offered by Morfeo were outdated, it was running a very old version of Gforge (FusionForge’s predecessor) together with a bunch of WordPress and Mediawiki installations. The main task was to design a process to get all the information from the services provided by Morfeo: Gforge, WordPress and Mediawiki, and move them to a fresh instance of FusionForge and WordPress.
As promised, here you have the second part of our series on WebKit, which we started with the analysis of companies focused on who is authoring reviewed commits.
Commits by reviewing company (whole history of the project)
Now we come back with an analysis on who is reviewing, and to which companies reviewers are affiliated. To provide some context, it is worth citing the commit and review policy of the WebKit project, which explains how only specific developers, with long and recognized experience in the project, can become reviewers: “A potential Reviewer may be nominated once they have submitted a minimum of 80 good patches. They should also be in touch with other reviewers and aware of who are the experts in various areas.” Since changes to source code have to be accepted by a reviewer, to some extent they are acting as the gatekeepers of the project, those in charge of ensuring that new code matches quality standards, and are in line with the project guidelines.
Therefore, the analysis of which companies are employing reviewers shows the project from another perspective, this time focused on those involved in this gatekeeping activity. The landscape now is different from that shown by the authorship analysis.