Added a comment: re: bad graphs
authorzack <zack@web>
Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:09:55 +0000 (13:09 +0200)
committerStefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>
Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:09:55 +0000 (13:09 +0200)
blog/posts/2014/04/historical_overview_of_debian_source_code/comment_6_e5e96084eb9f877efe799a55b91c64c0._comment [new file with mode: 0644]

diff --git a/blog/posts/2014/04/historical_overview_of_debian_source_code/comment_6_e5e96084eb9f877efe799a55b91c64c0._comment b/blog/posts/2014/04/historical_overview_of_debian_source_code/comment_6_e5e96084eb9f877efe799a55b91c64c0._comment
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..a1a5533
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="zack"
+ avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/9c31af6c5b4daa602dacb9d90274df38"
+ subject="re: bad graphs"
+ date="2014-04-09T11:09:55Z"
+ content="""
+Right. So, it's not a bug in the data, but arguably a bug in how it is presented --- we can definitely do better on that front.
+
+First of all, the 20-years data graphs are not meant to cover the historical evolution of Debian releases. Those data is currently available only at per-release pages.
+
+The 20-years data are rather meant to cover the historical evolution of the sources.d.n dataset. We have only about 1 year of history, as sources.d.n didn't exist earlier on. That could be made clearer by having longer x-axes, going back 20 years; but the data would be invariably 0 for the years before 2013, so I'm not really sure what we will really gain by doing that.
+"""]]