From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757715Ab1KJPQA (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:16:00 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:50486 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752492Ab1KJPP7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:15:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:15:48 +0900 From: =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Pinot To: Nick Bowler Cc: LKML Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size Message-ID: <20111110151548.GA8557@comet.deepsky.org> References: <20111110143333.GA29457@comet.deepsky.org> <20111110145902.GA13619@elliptictech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20111110145902.GA13619@elliptictech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/10/11 09:59, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2011-11-10 23:33 +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote: > > I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the > > linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases). > > It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y). > > > > Impressive, it's mostly exponential. > > If dev keeps same pace, we should break the 100MB at > > linux 3.19. > > > > You can get the graph on my blog, I provide the data and the > > gnuplot batch file for graphing/fitting: > > http://ngc891.blogdns.net/?p=92 > > > > It may interest some people :-) > > What scale did you use for the horizontal axis? I see numbers assigned > to each version in your gnuplot file, but no indication of how you came > up with them. It's just the release count, one step for one release. Some release are missing, mostly at the very beginning, I didn't find tarball for them but it doesn't matter much for the shape of the curve. -- Jérôme Pinot http://ngc891.blogdns.net/