From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git version statistics Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:52:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20120601085211.GB32340@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120531114801.GA21367@sigill.intra.peff.net> <981b755b-ca86-4320-a4fc-8aa28caa099d@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Bash X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 01 10:52:28 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SaNar-0004yT-Sg for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:52:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758290Ab2FAIwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:52:21 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:39646 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754446Ab2FAIwU (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:52:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 30920 invoked by uid 107); 1 Jun 2012 08:52:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:52:21 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:52:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <981b755b-ca86-4320-a4fc-8aa28caa099d@mail> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:20:46AM -0400, Stephen Bash wrote: > > The interesting thing to me is how spiky it is, and where the spikes > > fall. I would expect to see a spike around the highest maint release > > of each major version (so v1.7.8.6, for example, with many fewer > > installs of v1.7.8.5, v1.7.8.4, and so forth). But that's not what > > happens. The most popular v1.7.8.x versions are .3 and .2, and hardly > > anybody bothered to move to v1.7.8.6. > > I wonder if the spikes correlate with time between releases? For open > source projects I tend to download the most recent when setting up a > new machine (or after encountering a nasty bug), and then not upgrade > for a while. So in that mode of operation, releases that are "the > newest" for the longest would get more users... (though at least on my > Mac the homebrew project is helping me break the habit and stay more > up-to-date) Good point. If you assume that users pick a random day to upgrade or install and choose the latest version, then you will get a non-uniform distribution. Because the release dates are non-uniform, their time spent as the latest is not even. There may also be natural variations in installations over time (e.g., over holidays). Here are the release dates for the v1.7.8.x series, as well as the adjacent master releases: v1.7.8 2011-12-02 v1.7.8.1 2011-12-21 v1.7.8.2 2011-12-28 v1.7.8.3 2012-01-06 v1.7.8.4 2012-01-18 v1.7.9 2012-01-27 v1.7.8.5 2012-02-26 v1.7.10 2012-04-06 v1.7.8.6 2012-04-26 So .2 and .3 were latest for 9 and 12 days, respectively. However, .4 was also the latest for 9 days (until v1.7.9 came out), but does not have as many users. So why did nobody bother upgrading to v1.7.8.4? And why wouldn't v1.7.8 have a spike, since it was at the top for 19 days? I can see why v1.7.8.5 and v1.7.8.6 are the way they are (they were never latest, and most people would just install v1.7.9 or v1.7.10 instead). So I think your theory probably explains some of the data, but not all (and it seems that most people don't really seem to care about old maint releases once a new master release is out). -Peff