From: zack Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:09:55 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Added a comment: re: bad graphs X-Git-Url: http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=homepage.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=3ad975fb16826f8bf2ed4fd6a1f7568eb56f6b9d Added a comment: re: bad graphs --- 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 index 00000000..a1a5533f --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2014/04/historical_overview_of_debian_source_code/comment_6_e5e96084eb9f877efe799a55b91c64c0._comment @@ -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. +"""]]