CHAOSS Common Metrics Working Group, 17 Sep 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: CHAOSS.Common.Sept.17.2020

Description

CHAOSS.Common.Sept.17.2020

A

And I'm beginning recording welcome to the september 17th 2020 meeting of the common working group.

A

um We are here today uh I'll be coordinating the meeting in the absence of our fearless leader, don foster and let's take a look at the things on the agenda. First off uh action items from the previous meeting um scrolling down uh language distribution did incorporate some of the feedback. I don't know if it's all of it here it was going to add implementation and visualizations from gremore lab.

A

Let's take a look at how that's looking.

A

All right, I think you have to maybe put this on the agenda of some other working groups.

A

All right, I don't have gremore lab stuff, yet so a little bit of progress on that one from the previous meeting and see what other. I think, those are the two action items.

A

Some action not complete and let's see review prs.

A

A

I'm just going to this in a different window.

B

You want to start recording sean. I did oh hello.

A

Recording yeah um yeah when I said welcome to the meeting that was my right after I hit the record button. So this is the uh next item. Looking at issues and pull requests, we have no pull requests, let's see what the issues are and I don't think that's he released notes. I don't think we have to talk about that.

A

We have burstiness, which I know we discussed a little bit last time and discussion on responsiveness, metrics back from may so.

A

Burstiness, uh I think the discussion that we had the last time was somewhat geared around.

A

See if we captured any of that.

A

Maybe we didn't discuss it, um but we have burstiness.

A

I know one of the comments that I had was that um these are effectively kind of they could be release cycles, so tying metrics.

A

A

A

Lisa's in a repository which we can do in augur and the other point of discussion I remember from that- is these. This would essentially be a particular way of essentially bursting this as a particular way of looking at other metrics.

A

Cycles of activity in existing metrics um anybody else have comments or thoughts about the burstiness issue. It looks like the one issue that could warrant discussion today.

B

I think what you have there, I mean for your second point: it's like burstiness around issues. It's pushing us around pr's mail list activity.

B

Things like that.

C

Where would um something like a hackathon or some kind of concerted effort to increase um participation or increase contributions? How does that does that fit in here somewhere or.

A

It does because we do see burstiness around hackathons.

B

I think it would be elizabeth, like um you would take a you, would use this metric as a way to see the impact of a hackathon, something like that or you would use this metric when you have no idea what happened, and you might want to be like why in the world did we just get 45 issues posted.

A

Yeah, um for example, when we have um done when we've done hackathons or when I've talked with people like don about wow you've cut a ton of activity in this one repo at this one point in time that stands out from the other four years of his life she's like oh, we had a hackathon around that, so I think I think sometimes burstiness is tied to releases, and sometimes it's tied to these intensive coding periods um that.

D

Occur, I observed this sorry go ahead. No.

E

I was going to say just on that same theme. I think you could just genericize and put events in there as well. Like somebody presenting at a conference, I mean at first when, when, when elizabeth said that it was like that kind of falls under events itself, but I kind of actually like the distinction between the two, because hackathon is like putting fingers on keyboards and doing something. Events is like I heard about it, and now I'm checking this out.

E

I don't know if you'd agree with their elizabeth or not.

C

Yeah, no, I totally do because a hackathon the whole excuse me. The whole purpose is to get people to contribute and to do stuff, like you said, but a conference you're just you know presenting so that would be kind of like um an auxiliary benefit to presenting, whereas a hackathon, you really want to be more deliberate in measuring that impact. Like like matt, said earlier so yeah. I think they could be separate.

F

I observed the same activity when google summer of quotes joined the cures project. I started seeing them putting a lot of issues or requests and evolving around the activity.

C

Yeah, I would agree with that as well, because we've seen for sure I mean just recently with the google summer of docs, like there's, been a huge push from jaskrat to you, know, he's making a lot of contributions right now in this short period of time. So I don't know. I guess my question is around that what is considered a burst like? Is there a like a time frame like it has to be two days or or 48 hours? I guess that would be a two days already sorry or like.

C

Is it a month like yeah yeah, but it's the time frame for a burst.

B

So I think of um sean in auger had been working on a tool called auggie. I think yeah.

G

B

Anomaly, detector, and so what it did was it would take. I don't know quite how it works sean you can describe it, but I'm guessing. It was a couple standard deviations away from the norm.

F

B

It saw that it would send an alert.

A

Yeah it's configurable um and then people can limit the number of events that they get in a particular day. So if you're monitoring 3000 repositories, you you may have 100 anomalies a day or 50 and you may just want to see the eight most anomalous or you may want to target specific rebos and we actually covered augie in the auger working group meeting and that's on video. So you can learn all about augie in in that video, and I will um once kevin posts the video I'll promote it.

F

I would say that, from the visual perspective, it's I'm not looking at the standard division or anything there's a certain spike in the graph.

F

We can observe that as a burstiness like if your graph is going very smooth, a straight line or like smoothly rising, but there is a sudden spike in the graph that clearly shows the burst in it. It doesn't correlate with the time or it it's just an even that made that a spike in the graph.

A

Yeah, the bike is likely to turn up turn up as an anomaly, but but yes,.

A

But I think you have mentorship programs.

H

About uh uh critical bugs with burstiness, occur around critical, bugs that that is um likely.

C

You would hope so anyway, that people actually want to fix them and like pay attention to that so yeah you.

H

Would, if not we're in trouble right.

A

H

A

Yeah sometimes like critical, like what you saw, for example, with open ssl, is you saw bursty activity by completely different people who had than those who had been contributing previously that effectively rewrote all of what openssl is over a period of months and that that shows up in the open, ssl repo, as I'm not even sure it shows up, as it initially shows up as burstiness.

A

But then it shows up as a steady, uh steady amount of activity over a period of about two years after that, bug was released just to make sure that the the technology remained up to date. uh So it.

B

Actually appeared.

A

As bursty, but then it would have looked like the trend had just changed.

B

Could we do something sean? Could you click on that google doc right under burstiness issues.

A

I thought I did, but apparently they did too not.

B

B

Could we start taking some of what you just typed up and dropping it into like.

B

B

Just I just grabbed the stuff you had just typed shot and just dropped it into the description yeah. I didn't think anything covered.

C

I don't know if this is something worth noting here or where, but I think there might be also uh I don't. I don't know what the right word is, but there might be some kind of tie between if your project is something that other people depend on and they need features or they need something fixed or they need something.

C

Then they start contributing for their own purposes and that's kind of like the critical bugs. But it's a little bit different um and I don't know if that's something we want to to take note of or or not I don't know, does that make sense.

B

H

That's what I'm thinking oh go ahead. Sorry.

B

Oh no, I was just thinking in the objectives like maybe what is the objective of this metric? It's you know to help. You know if you see typing, if you're in that document, to help identify.

B

Impacts of hackathons right, which was mentioned earlier and to help identify what you had just talked about elizabeth, which was like um identify new community members, show up. I don't know how to say this real well um right.

C

Because you might not even yeah, you might not even know that a project is using your project until that burstiness happens and causes you to kind of look a little deeper, and then you see a bunch of people kind of cross. You know cross-contributing from this other place, then that might be.

E

C

That this is a dependency that oh we're they are really using our stuff or my project. So I don't know.

B

Okay, I I wrote that down, it's super wordy and how I typed it, but.

B

B

B

B

So I think this is a good start. I can take the action item of trying to like take some of these notes.

B

And bring them back in two weeks: okay, all.

C

C

I have a quick question: um is: is it common to see that, after a period of burstiness, the levels does stay higher the level of engagement and contribution stays higher? After that.

A

I think there are multiple patterns that rear their heads. Sometimes it can sometimes it doesn't.

C

Like if someone I was just thinking, if someone was like their ultimate goal, was to increase the overall level of contributions, would the burstiness like doing something that would increase burstiness, I.e, hexan? Would that help them achieve the ultimate goal of raising the.

E

C

Level of engagement- I didn't know.

B

That we had any.

C

Data about that yeah.

B

It's an interesting question kind of like um if our, if our line is one and then there's a burst, does our line then come back down to 1.5 and we stay a little above where we used to be it's not obviously staying at that peak burstiness spot. But that's an interesting question. I don't know I put it in contribution. Do you see that it may not go there, but.

A

Nope, that's uh perfect, just wanna make sure we got it into the spreadsheet. Well done! I am four steps ahead of you.

B

That was one step, but, okay, you don't even know it yeah you only. That was the only one you saw, but I'm currently, so I know what you're doing four steps from now and I've already done it all right. All right.

A

Risk technical forks uh is the next agenda item. Unless there's- uh oh, I guess actually the next one would be to review progress on the spreadsheet, but is there more that we want to say about bursting this or we just want to give matt the action item for next week on that one.

B

I already gave myself the action item for it see I don't see, but scroll down and you'll see it. Oh.

G

A

Let's see yeah, I just I put them in the hot top level, so it's easier to spot, but that works too.

A

So review metric spreadsheet.

A

And let's see contributor, employer location.

A

uh Let's see for some reason, I think I have to reduce the size. I think I had my thing pretty good so looks like we do have a.

A

Lot of stuff here under contributor, employer, location and contributor location.

A

And what we said is learn from contrib location and do more work, so I think contributor location is what we want to learn from. Is this a release.

I

Metric, yes, okay,.

A

And obviously, there's a sense that was contributor, employer location released as well.

C

A

Somebody just somebody just turned that.

C

Down yeah, I don't think it was.

A

Yeah all right because it was blue a second ago- and that was king, green.

A

I

I think we talked extensively about this one and then decided to release one see what feedback we get. At least that's what the note there indicates to me.

I

Before we release another location, metric.

F

I recall the discussion. It was like whether it can be a filter or itself a new metric filter in the existing like location, contributor location or we make it a new metric. That's the discussion was.

D

A

Yeah, so when I think of employer location, I think okay, I'm a developer. I work for.

A

uh Let's say I work for the japanese intelligence agency, whatever that is, but I do that at my home in columbia, missouri, which is probably treason, but let's move past that um and I my employer is in japan, but I'm here so I think employer location is intended if I remember from prior discussions to reflect where the employers are are at as opposed to where the people are at. So those are often two different things.

A

Does anyone else recall this discussion from a priority.

B

I do and then I recall this discussion going down the road of like there's, not a single location and some places are incorporated in delaware, so delaware would get like this awesome. Look from an open source perspective right right, so I think the general like feeling was. This is not a real tractable metric based on that issue alone, when we have headquarters all over the place.

A

Yeah I you'd certainly have to be very. This would require a lot of hands-on decoding.

A

Like for literally every employer, you'd have to have someone do analysis to determine where that employer's primary location or locations are.

I

Is there anyone asking for this metric.

A

I mean somebody did.

I

I think we were talking about location, and then we determined that this is one type of location and it should be a separate metric because it's so complex, I think it came out of the work on the contributor location. It did not come because anyone said I would like to know this information.

I

So to me this is a metric we can save. We've talked about it right now,.

A

I

On other things,.

A

I think this drops back to considering- and I think, uh there's an issue that I had open. Oh, that was the release candidate for comments does, does employer come up in here? No, I don't know why that was that was linked somewhere or maybe somebody put it in chat.

A

um uh um I think it's more the case that, um unlike.

A

Contributor location.

B

Oops, I think two people were typing in that box.

F

B

G

All right, I will let you.

A

Let's screw your system up, if I turn word wrap on for the remarks comment.

B

B

B

Oh, that row is really ugly. Now it's just white or mad. It's not ugly, inconsistent driving, crazy yeah. I mean it's okay,.

A

Yeah, it's hard it's hard like.

G

C

I think function over form is okay, in this case, matt.

A

uh I think that I wanted to clear up what any, because previously it said that this is just derived for sort of a variance on contributor location, and I actually don't think it is at all based on this discussion like this is: where is the employer located and that question alone will require substantial.

I

I

Oh yeah good idea to put a note in at the top here that bring.

A

I

Yeah or common.

B

You could just take the same comment from the spreadsheet.

A

Right, I want to put more detail in it, so contribute location is where the contributor.

A

Is where application can be confounded by multiple locations um to uh tax purpose, location of a headquarters in one state or country, even though most work occurs elsewhere,.

A

So, for you know, for example, like um trying to think of a company that has a headquarter, you recorders in delaware, but all your development is in california.

A

Boeing's headquarters is in chicago for tax purposes, but most of its work occurs in washington state and in missouri you have elsevier, which is a major publisher. Most of the work occurs really in many different states and countries, and most of the money from the that british incorporated company flows to a separate holding company in the netherlands for tax purposes, so identifying um yeah, identifying employee location is definitely a stickier wicket, because it's got nothing to do with ip address.

I

E

I know there are.

I

Laws in the making to make it even managing it, because europe especially is trying to work against the american companies and trying to keep some of the revenue in europe the tax revenue. That is so there are more and more laws coming out that will make managing ip even within the same company.

A

I'm an internet I'm an ip address, but not intellectual property, but I hear you.

I

A

I think you were talking about intellectual property.

I

Yep which factors into the location, because if you have a company that says any work that you do with our hardware on the clock, belongs to us, then contributor, location or the employer location is important for the ip.

G

Trace laws, what laws are abided by yeah.

I

And for tax purposes I I don't think we have a long fight. Yet that goes that far. But it's definitely in the conversation.

A

Yeah that that conversation has got to be about, can I american patent be enforced in a different country, um or can my british patent be enforced in other countries and I'm not a patent lawyer, but most people don't want their patents in the u.s, because there's more money here or there was.

I

Or can you have internal um internal measures for costs derived in different countries because that's where the engineers sit, even though it's all the same company mm-hmm anyway? That's up yeah, I'm sorry.

A

Yeah yeah yeah, certainly yeah.

A

Let's see anything else on the metric spreadsheet here, working on language, distribution, technical, forks and burstiness, these are in progress is burstiness of activity any different than burstiness.

I

I think that's the same.

A

I do too, I'm gonna copy these rows up here, because I think matt just created that row right.

B

Which row burstiness row.

A

Yeah, the under when under time.

B

Bursting with negativity, uh no, maybe from a long time ago, I didn't do it today.

A

It was literally all the same data so.

I

And I think burstingness.

A

I

Fits better with the time than with the country when the with the what okay.

A

So we're just going to delete this row. Oh wait hold on before you do that all right grab the it's all there all over, all the all the rest of the stuff's the same, although you didn't the google spreadsheet, isn't in either place the google doc you mean yes, sorry, yeah! You knew what I meant. I did.

A

Oh here it is bursty get all bursty with it.

A

I will replace. I did.

B

It okay perfect and then you can get rid of row 25 all.

A

Right, do we close issue 32 then, or do we leave that.

A

A

And again, I think it's good. If we have an issue open, I think it's good to keep track of that as.

A

B

um I just added a link in the issue to the google.

A

Docs, okay um and then for common. Let's go back to the agenda here, technical forks, uh anything that you want to add about technical forks today, even on.

F

Yes, I have worked a little bit on that, so if you can take a look at that, okay, uh I have a one question, because I was not in the last meeting where this uh concept of technical word technical arise to the folks. My suggestion was just to keep the folk as a overall arching and in the description we are having this distinction between technical community or as the hostile.

D

Folk, so the reason.

A

Since you weren't here, let me give you the reason that we landed on technical fork, there's also this concept of a hostile fork. The examples that are often given are an open office or an open office sport from libreoffice, with no intention of ever returning its code back to libreoffice, and this that was kind of a hostile fork. Same thing happened. When oracle corporation bought my sequel, there was immediately an open source hostile fork to mariadb of that code base, and so there is in the lingo and experience of open source.

A

There are these periodic occurrences of forks that that are not forks in the sense that we're talking about them. They are not they're. Forks are the. uh I want to say political agenda, maybe that's too strong, but they're they're forks with a it's sort of like when paul simon became just paul simon instead of part of simon and garfunkel.

A

You know there was a rift. Essentially, these these hostile torques are the symbol of a rift where the band breaks up.

H

So I've made several comments in this document. Talking about the kind of the conceptual idea of works that you're that you're referring to, I don't think it's helpful for us to to really talk about hostile, forks or the different conceptual or conceptual types of forks.

H

I think we just need to look at it specifically as a technical fork, which is a distributed version, control copy of a repository project and we're measuring it specifically on up this platform- uh and I I put a little- I put a couple bits of text in there that basically says the we can't we can't measure intentions, so the the number of technical forks may provide insight into forking intentions.

H

However, we we can't really say anything about hostile force. We don't know if it's a hostile fork. All we know is a technical fork.

A

Well, in in practice, though, a hostile fork doesn't show up as a fork on a repo, so they fork it. They remove the link to the other fork and they make it their own repo, which.

H

Which I think further strengthens the case that uh we can't really differentiate between a hostile fork and a technical fork. uh Because because, as you say, it's it's pulled onto a different uh platform right.

A

Perhaps hostile there's a more neutral word that we could come up with I. I do think that people know people interpret forks, two different ways and some kind of reference to the other way to make it clear that that's not. This will disambiguate what we mean by technical fork.

H

I think we can do that with uh with just a disclaimer that basically is kind of similar to what I've written there. That basically says technical forks may provide insight into these other conceptual ideas of forking. uh However,.

A

I wonder what section is that.

H

It's down in objectives, okay, so and then I also have a couple comments that.

F

I have proposed an implementation like two: the through which we can post talk. Major the uh uh difference between hostile or not her style is like ratio of contributing folks and ratio of not contributing so like. I have taken a fork, but if I'm contributing back, that becomes a ratio of contributing for and if I'm not contributing, but I'm still having a full copy. So that is a risk of not contributing for so that can help us distinguish a little bit. So I.

I

Like the idea, what do you do with forks? I I fork repositories just because I want my own copy to play with, but I never intend to contribute back or run with it.

F

I

A separate project.

F

Yeah, so that ratio will help to like get.

A

I've also created what I call stability forks if I'm using another repo for something I will create a fork solely so that when I build my software that uses the code in that repository, I can rely on it being consistent over time and then I can choose periodically to update my fork with the latest from the source fork. So that's a third purpose that people use forks for and.

H

Then I would reiterate.

A

I saw that a lot in comcast's uh collection of repos. They do a lot of stability forking. There.

H

I I would reiterate that it's really really hard to measure intentions, so I don't think we should even try.

C

I would also say that some some projects are meant to be forked, like they're service templates, for someone to take and run with in their own local uh if it's a local kind of project, especially in like the social good space, there's a lot of those who are like okay, we have the baseline I'll, take it and go run this in your city or run this in your town or whatever. So I think that's.

H

Just another another.

C

Use case of of not intending to fork back or to contribute.

A

Like I'm, I would like I'm cool if we like, remove this and then put kevin's thing from the objective under description. I just I have an instinct that we want to hit this distinction and then like higher than objectives.

H

A

H

To be addressed, uh I just I just don't think we want to dig into what a hostile fork is. I.

A

Agree, the sole purpose of the sentence was to disambiguate, and, and so with that, with that purpose, I, like your paragraph better than the one that exists for disambiguation.

C

And I think too, maybe that, like vanad said, maybe it's a it's a metric that we would combine with another metric to show hostile, forks or to pull those out or show them just show the ones that didn't come back. You know to to you, so um I don't know if that's considered a filter or or what we call it when we add it with another metric, but I think that that could be the way to go forward. That.

F

I have added that to the parameters maybe like just to have a ratio of contributing and non-contributing.

I

I think that's a good parameter.

I

F

Of saying hostile yeah instead of saying hostile, I would say, non-contributing fork.

H

Yeah yeah I, like that, a lot better than non-contributing.

H

A

Because yeah, another kind of contemporary fork is just I forked it for my own entertainment. I just wanted to have it handy like sometimes I fork it because it's easier than bookmarking the original one and remembering to go back with it back to it, and just it'll remind me that I'm doing something there if it's in my list of repositories and so forking is sometimes something I do for convenience. For my own convenience.

H

Would we, then, would we then create a uh a non-contributing fork metric where we could discuss what that might look like there.

A

I think a non-contributing fork is, I think, it's a parameter on this one, and I would say if a fork has never issued a pull request back to the repository it is forked from it is by definition, a non-contributing fork, there's also a technical fork, but it is a non-contributing technical fork.

H

Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

D

Is it a parameter or a filter?

D

It's right. It depends.

A

um It really it depends on.

A

Functionally they would behave the same like. I would like my statistics, whether you call what I call it as a parameter. I guess that depends that's kind of an implementation guide like do. I need to have fork type contributing non-contributing in the parameters, and filters is, uh do I want to filter by?

A

Do people get the right to take out and present separately the the filtering and.

I

Non-Filtering forks, if they're almost equivalent, I would prefer filters because that's a defined section in our template.

A

And we actually already somebody kevin, probably already wrote it in there. Parameters is also a defined section. Is it not.

H

No, I think parameters is, uh is uh optional mutation.

I

Parameters is something that the evolution working group was using heavily, but none of the others and it's more technical.

I

A

Don't think I don't think we need it in this case, because there's really I'm going to count the forks and the ratio of contributing fork to total forks and the ratio of none from being forced to total forks.

A

We have to define uh contributing fork. Is there a place for definitions in the template.

I

Not a defined section, I would put it under either.

E

In the description.

I

Or in the references.

H

Is a uh is a contributing fork synonymous with a with a.

H

I

I think a review is uh something on a pull request.

H

Yeah yeah I'm going to contribute a fork you have to a pr back in so the so a contributing fork would be a successfully merged review. It doesn't.

A

Even have to be successfully merged, I think I think it's have. They ever issued a pull request back to the source fork. Yeah.

H

A

Just a review, um it's just just a pull request and it's a it's not a pull request. It's not a review. It's a change request.

A

Is that what we're calling it now.

H

Yes, okay, I think I must have. I must have.

D

Missed that conversation.

A

We have to we have to like we. Basically everyone decide. There was fairly good consensus at the second to most recent um general meeting and last at the general meeting, the first general meeting of the year.

A

We had a fairly full agenda and we did not get to that agenda item, so I mean, I think, it's from the evolution group's perspective, calling it a review is absolutely confusing and it needs to change and we've done a lot of work to identify change request as the as what it's going to be um in the interest of the community.

A

We've we've been waiting for that to be addressed in the the monthly meeting and we just missed. There were so much other stuff in the monthly meeting this last time that we didn't get there, but we should probably make the first agenda item in the in the next monthly meeting, so that can be resolved for once and for all, but I believe it is going to be called the change request. Certainly review does not cut it.

A

It's just it's too ambiguous. It's too overloaded as a term and software.

H

I definitely prefer change request. You know.

C

Sean, I can add that to the uh agenda, please.

A

C

A comment in that to make sure we don't miss it.

A

Please yeah I would I would. I would ask that fbg's put at the top of the agenda so that it can be put to bed.

H

Alternately, you could uh just treat it as part of the code release process and make the changes and put it up for comment.

A

Yeah I mean that's, um I wanted consensus before I did it, because it was it's kind of a big. It's changing the name of an existing metric and I didn't want the evolution working group doing that in any way that could be perceived as not in the in the inter. You know in the openness of the community.

H

It is a metric that affects a lot of other metrics right as well, so yeah yeah.

A

H

A

Yeah, so that's that's the reason that I I just I wanted and we didn't get the okie doke in the august monthly meeting. um So we we almost had the okie doke. There was one person who was who expressed some concerns, and so I wanted to have the discussion one more time I mean the overwhelming consensus, except for one person was.

A

We should go with change request, but I didn't want to steamroll that one person I wanted there to be another discussion, but solely in the interest of maintaining the openness of the community and since one working group- and I was coordinating that working group at the time suggested it. I didn't want to create any impression that we were steamrolling.

B

Let's just bring it up again and I'm not. I don't know what other people's thoughts are. I'm not sure that all if we can agree kind of through fuzzy consensus that this is the change that all of the metrics and all of the metrics that refer to review need to go under public review.

B

You know like under a one month comment period. This almost seems like a grammatical change to me and we had agreed that grammar changes don't need to be around open for 30 days, yeah.

H

Yeah as an evolution metric, I think uh evolution's wish should take the uh the front yeah.

A

I would say it's a: it was a you know. There was a prominent important. It was a prominent founding member of the community and a board member who was expressing some reservations about it, and so I was sensitive and I think I was running the meeting and um matt. I think for some reason you weren't able to be there, so I was particularly reluctant to not. I just didn't want to steamroll it. I just didn't want to create the impression and probably overthought it.

H

I think that might that might have been the last issue that was being discussed in the meeting too, so we may have actually run out of time or have to stop yeah that that.

A

I'd have to go back and check the tape, but that's.

A

A

Anyhow, that was a sidelight conversation. I think we're reaching reasonable consensus that, and I think we're technical forks is becoming fairly.

A

Developed at this time.

F

We don't have ready for release.

I

We don't have any open suggestions, no.

A

I think that yeah I saw that georg. um I I think I think, if there are no opposing views, that we may want to ask benad to prepare this for release review um as an interim release metric.

F

C

A quick question about the um the apis: I noticed we we linked to the github api. I'm assuming gitlab provides similar information through their api.

D

Did we link to the github api.

C

Down below or under data.

F

Oh yeah, um I I provided these references when I was developing this metric because I got the idea like how they have used it. So I'm not sure I can look at for the gitlab, but uh yeah.

D

A

I would say if there's a get lab, yeah one if we're gonna start, including those- and I do not think that is a bad idea. Yes um get lab, would certainly be the the other substantial platform. I.

D

Have I will I will look for gitlab and bitbucket both, so if there is.

F

D

I'll put the link and then.

G

Yeah, since this is such.

D

A

Since it's just like many of our metrics cannot be retrieved through a single api call, but the number of four scan so I'd say it's a good idea to include.

B

It so I think, we're at the end, and but before you go sean, I had one quick question for you. We can stop on this one, because it's not a common question. Okay,.

A

I'm sorry somebody stopped the recording. Thank you, everybody for a wonderful common meeting.