After that lunch on Wednesday where I talked about how much I really love the numbers and pretty graphs that are on planet.mozilla.org regularly, I wanted to do stats on Miro.
There are two things I'm interested in measuring. The first is measurements related to release cycles and development process. The second is measurements related to contributions.
Anyhow, here are some rough tables:
tag tv/ released cycle ------ ----- ---------- ------- Miro 1.0 151 MB 53 MB 11/13/2007 N/A Miro 1.1 169 MB 58 MB 1/10/2008 58 days Miro 1.2 253 MB 63 MB 3/20/2008 70 days
"tag" - size in MB of the codebase which includes binary kits and other stuff
"tv/" - size in MB of just the tv/ directory
"released" - release date
"cycle" - the length in days of the release cycle
We're still doing tight release cycles. I'm hoping we'll trend towards longer release cycles. Something in the 3 month range would be easier on the devs and probably other people, too.
bugs fixed all gtk mac win bugs created all gtk mac win ---------- --- --- --- --- ------------ --- --- --- --- Miro 1.0 65 18 17 15 15 85 20 17 17 31 Miro 1.1 40 16 6 10 8 106 44 21 20 21 Miro 1.2 82 26 14 13 29 --
bugs fixed - number of bugs fixed and then broken down by platform
bugs created - number of bugs created against this version and then broken down by platform
I'll let you interpret the data as you like. I think the "bugs fixed" column is indicative of our priorities between the releases: 1.0 was a stability-focused release, 1.1 put out libtorrent, and 1.2 involved a code overhaul which caused a lot of regressions.
languages --------- Miro 1.0 63 Miro 1.1 66 Miro 1.2 70
I'd like to figure out how to get a rough measure of quality of
translations, but I'm not really sure how to go about doing that. I
threw together a script to count the number of instances where
msgstr, but the results don't seem very indicative of a
correctness or completeness figure. Launchpad has statistics, but
there's no way to look "back in time" at previous releases that I can
find. Are there any ideas for how to do that by looking at the
patches from contributors applied --------------------------------- Miro 1.0 4 Miro 1.1 2 Miro 1.2 1
What this table shows is that almost all development is being done by PCF. This table troubles me the most--more about that at the end. On to stats from Bugzilla.... First off, our Bugzilla data before October is probably mediocre, so I'm not really even looking at that. After that, the data has been getting better as more people are helping to triage and annotate bugs. Also, some bugs never make it to Bugzilla. I know that sedatg and some other people mention issues to us on IRC semi-regularly which get fixed, but aren't tied back to Bugzilla bugs. It's probably fair to say these stats are indicative of things but aren't 100% accurate.
Miro 1.2 stats ============== length of cycle: 70 days bugs fixed: 82 total By Operating System: all: 26 gtkx11: 14 osx: 13 win: 29 By Severity: blocker: 1 critical: 12 major: 5 normal: 58 minor: 2 enhancement: 4 By Component: Channels 11 Download 4 Feeds 1 Guides 3 Install 5 Library - New 3 Menu - Shortcut 3 Min - Max 1 Playback 14 Playlists 2 Search 6 Startup 10 Storage 1 System settings 2 User interface 5 main 11 bug reporters: 24 total pcf people: 7 community: 17
Miro is benefiting greatly from the community with testing and translations--that's really great and it's helping a ton! However, Miro is not getting much help from the community with code and PCF is pretty much funding all development. This is troubling. Miro is getting bigger over time and the complexity is growing, too. There are a lot of moving pieces in the stack of external components that Miro relies upon. There are two ways for Miro development to scale well:
additional funding for PCF so that they can fund developers
If you can contribute code, please let me know if there's something blocking your path. If you can't contribute code and/or you're interested in Miro getting better, then install iHeartMiro (there are versions for Firefox and IE) and/or donate money and help PCF fund developers.