| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Last gasp |
| Date: | 2012-04-11 14:28:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Wxt9=LDa5EWrUbBd24xJfPrxoevRBMNAmk2shfdAatcQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 April 2012 03:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [ scratches head... ] That's supposed to be total lines of code in our
> source tree? What's the big drop in late 2009, then?
I had wondered about that myself - all I can tell you is that I used
the tool as advertised, without any adornments. This particular tool
is a bit misleading, because it counts lines of code as lines of
checked-in text, which can include things that are very verbose
without necessarily being what we really think of as code - it doesn't
make any effort to discriminate against non-code, nor does it expose
the option of doing so. I chose it at short notice simply because it
produces graphs. I do intend to take a look at this problem in more
detail, and get better statistics on changes to our codebase - it's a
tricky proposition, though.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-04-11 14:35:10 | Re: Last gasp |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-11 14:24:20 | Re: Last gasp |