Forums : Ohloh General Discussion

Dear Open Hub Users,

We’re excited to announce that we will be moving the Open Hub Forum to https://community.synopsys.com/s/black-duck-open-hub. Beginning immediately, users can head over, register, get technical help and discuss issue pertinent to the Open Hub. Registered users can also subscribe to Open Hub announcements here.


On May 1, 2020, we will be freezing https://www.openhub.net/forums and users will not be able to create new discussions. If you have any questions and concerns, please email us at [email protected]

dhis2 project last analyzed 12 months ago

Our project DHIS2 was last analyzed 12 months ago. I've updated the source code repository 7 days ago, but it hasn't analyzed the new repository location.
https://www.ohloh.net/p/dhis2

Can you please give it a push??

Saptarshi Purka... over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

Is the new enlistment meant to replace the old enlistments? I'm trying something to revive the old enlistments but if the new one replaces them, I'm not going to try very hard...

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

I think all of those point to the same location. The older ones with http links to the launchpad repo were failing so I added the 'lp:'-style repository and it worked. So, the older ones are ways in which the same repository is being accessed in bazaar.

Saptarshi Purka... over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

After looking at it, the new repository seems to point to only one (the -devs- one) and the other enlistment will not be analyzed if it is deleted. Both old enlistments failed and you would need to delete them in order to allow the new enlistment to be analyzed. If I can get it to work, you can have the choice later to delete them or not.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

I'm starting to agree. It looks as if there are remote refs in one of them but I'm not sure yet. One (the non-devs one) has failed again. If that happens again when I re-fetch it I'll wipe it out after documenting the enlistment. The -devs- old enlistment seems to be chugging along OK. Looks like if it finishes OK you will have 2 copies of one and one of the other. This will cause distortion of the lines-of-code counts once it is analyzed.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Yes, I think we should just remove the earlier ones. They are the same and point to the same code.
Although from your last comment, I understand that this will result in incorrect lines of code count?? Even if they are the same codebase, seems a little offbase on ohloh's part to me...

I can delete the earlier two code locations, if that is what you suggest. Will this mean the code analysis from ohloh will go away and new one will be done again??

Saptarshi Purka... over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

Let me be sure what will work and what will not. I am trying to be deliberately a little obscure here because I don't like discussing publicly the URL's of the enlistments (though savvy readers will be able to figure it all out.)

It's clear that two of the current enlistments are exactly the same and will duplicate each other. The third may be at least somewhat different because the commits numbers are different: The lp: enlistment added 7 days ago has 11400 commits then and the non-devs enlistment has 11436 commits today. Perhaps they are the same. It will be confirmed if the lp: enlistment adds 36 or so commits when it updates after all is said and done. The delete button on the enlistments page is really only a toggle-off button and isn't anything permanent and can be returned in the project history display. We will do that to all but one enlistment once things settle down to see what the re-analysis does.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Thank you. The analysis seems to have been updated and contains the newest commits. But the lp: enlistment has failed. Should we just delete the lp: enlistment and the other one and keep only the -devs- one. i.e. if the -devs- one will always update and not fail?

Saptarshi Purka... over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

It looks to me as if the lp: enlistment has worked OK. As we discussed, it added 38 additional commits when it updated and so it puts it on a par with the other three. I want to print out the current analysis and then I'll toggle off the two other enlistments and let the lp: enlistment stand alone for the next analysis and then we'll see what we really have.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

I just thought that it would be useful to point out that when you discovered that the lp: enlistment had failed, it was not a failure forever. The update auto-rescheduled and finished. I noticed because the job that ran the update showed 2nd attempt. The error that caused the problem was bzr - Invalid http response for... That's all the info I have but it does appear the problem was either server-related or internet-related. These are the errors we have pretty good luck with in auto-reschedule.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Saptarshi,

Analysis is now at August 21, 2012 on code collected on August 21, 2012 and last commit is at August 20, 2012 - about 23 hours ago.

After checking, the current status with only one enlistment (the lp: enlistment) the numbers have all settled in to a predictable pattern. The lines-of-code in all categories is exactly one-third what it was with three enlistments in-place. This, to me, is confirmation that you were right. Please examine the numbers whatever way you'd like and let me know here if there are any discrepancies and also please be sure you remind me here if the project stalls again.

Thanks!

ssnow-blackduck over 11 years ago
 

Thank you for the quick support on this. I will notify in case there are some issues

Saptarshi Purka... over 11 years ago