1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
a little DrakX history:
june 1999:
i start rewriting redhat's install in perl, partly for the fun of it. I'm
still working for the army
5 july 1999:
i start full time job at mandrakesoft. But we don't have many computers and i
must share the accounting computer with Merieme who is working half-time. No
test machine (i test on others box, and destroyed Jacques partitions once),
guess how it slows things down?
august 1999:
at last computers, even test one
first DrakX version which can install things, very very rough
september 1999:
a friend of mine help me 2 weeks on DrakX relayed by Francois
november 1999:
first released version of DrakX (goldpack). Not really stable yet.
january 2000:
7.0 is out, with a DrakX quite stable
july 2000:
dams starts working on draknet
mid-october -> mid-january 2000:
gc rewrites the stage1 to win every kb we can
-> size divided by 7 (!) for cdrom
The DrakX team is also doing a lot of other things:
- drakxtools
- urpmi, early MandrakeUpdate, early rpmdrake...
- Mandrake Control Center (new DrakConf)
- packages maintenance/enhancing (esp. ghostscript, 3D-wrappers, lilo)
- fixing core packages to make them installable
- scoring packages, sorting them, flagging them... (compssList, rpmsrate)
- reading/answering cooker and other MLs
- helping non-perl gurus :)
That doesn't give much. Me being the one more working on plain DrakX. It gives 2
people working for 1.5 years. IMO it isn't ``spending an enormous amount of
resources''.
And what do you mean by ``compared to the code base size''??? DrakX is currently
around 28K lines, which is big IMO. You can compare it with linuxconf which is
170K lines. I think the achievement of DrakX is comparable (a 6 times code size
win from dumb C++ to expressive perl is normal imo).
Also it seems like we don't have the same understanding of the word
"maintenance".
DrakX functionalities have evolved *a lot* since the beginning:
- hardware detection, configuration, debugging, work-arounding (multi-kernel installs...)
- making things prettier
- more bitmaps
- "advanced" button
- syslinux graphical boot
- making it work with latest versions of software (eg: switching to rpm4)
- finding out the best way to use rpmlib
- multi-cd
- draknet: configuring every piece of stupid protocols
- diskdrake: raid, loopback, LVM, resizing, checking stupid users entry
- XFdrake: multi-mice, multi-heads, 3D-accel
- porting to axp/sparc/ppc (with Stew's help)
- always more i18n
- keeping things small
- .cz format
- moving to .png
- getFile on demand from mdkinst for ramdisk installs
[...]
> You don't believe the books ? Count yourself; see the man/months spent
> in 'pure' developoment in drakX, and the resources put in mantainance
> of the code base; as far as i know, your count should confirm what the
> books says; more probabily, you will discover that our numbers are
> even worse.
if you count enhancements, adding features... in maintenance, i confirm the
numbers, and find them quite normal.
if you only count bug fixing, the time would be much shorter (around 30%).
|
