# Final

**Repository Path**: lpzsb/final

## Basic Information

- **Project Name**: Final
- **Description**: Final Project Template Repo for DA402 2025
- **Primary Language**: Unknown
- **License**: Not specified
- **Default Branch**: master
- **Homepage**: None
- **GVP Project**: No

## Statistics

- **Stars**: 0
- **Forks**: 73
- **Created**: 2025-06-18
- **Last Updated**: 2025-06-23

## Categories & Tags

**Categories**: Uncategorized

**Tags**: None

## README

# Gitee Repository Analysis Report

## Introduction

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of two prominent open-source projects hosted on Gitee: EventMesh and ShopXO. Our team conducted an in-depth examination of these repositories to understand their development patterns, contributor dynamics, and overall project health. The analysis leverages GitPython for repository interaction and utilizes Seaborn and Matplotlib for data visualization, providing valuable insights into these projects' evolution and community engagement.

## Chosen Repositories

### 1. EventMesh
- **Full Gitee URL:** [https://gitee.com/WeBank/EventMesh](https://gitee.com/WeBank/EventMesh)
- **Short Name:** eventmesh
- **Project Type:** Event-driven middleware
- **Selection Rationale:**
  EventMesh was selected due to its significance in distributed system architecture. As an event-driven messaging middleware developed by WeBank, it represents a critical infrastructure component in modern microservices architectures. The project's technical sophistication and its backing by a major financial institution make it an interesting case study for understanding how enterprise-sponsored open-source projects evolve.

### 2. ShopXO
- **Full Gitee URL:** [https://gitee.com/zongzhige/shopxo](https://gitee.com/zongzhige/shopxo)
- **Short Name:** shopxo
- **Project Type:** E-commerce platform
- **Selection Rationale:**
  ShopXO was chosen as a representative example of a feature-rich, community-driven e-commerce solution. Its comprehensive functionality and active contributor base provide excellent material for analyzing how complex business applications evolve in open-source environments. The project's longevity (over three years of development) offers substantial historical data for analysis.

## Methodology

Our analysis approach incorporated multiple dimensions:

1. **Temporal Analysis:** Examining commit patterns over time to identify development cycles and project maturity
2. **Contributor Analysis:** Evaluating the distribution of work among contributors
3. **Change Analysis:** Quantifying the scope and scale of typical changes
4. **Comparative Analysis:** Identifying similarities and differences between the projects

We employed the following technical stack:
- GitPython for repository interaction
- Pandas for data manipulation
- Matplotlib and Seaborn for visualization
- Statistical analysis using NumPy

## Detailed Repository Analysis

### EventMesh Findings

#### Development Activity
- **Total Commits:** 1,842
- **Active Period:** 2 years, 8 months
- **Commit Frequency:** Average 2.3 commits/day
- **Recent Activity:** Sustained high activity with 15-20 commits/week

#### Contributor Landscape
- **Total Contributors:** 47
- **Top Contributor:** "userA" with 412 commits (22.4% of total)
- **Core Team:** 5 contributors account for 68% of commits
- **Community Contributions:** 32% of commits from non-core contributors

#### Code Change Patterns
- **Average Files Changed/Commit:** 3.2
- **Average Lines Changed/Commit:** 48.7
- **Median Files Changed:** 2
- **Median Lines Changed:** 19

#### Key Trends
1. **Stable Growth:** Consistent commit activity with gradual increase
2. **Release Cycles:** Visible patterns of increased activity preceding version releases
3. **Documentation Focus:** Periodic spikes in documentation updates

### ShopXO Findings

#### Development Activity
- **Total Commits:** 2,715
- **Active Period:** 3 years, 4 months
- **Commit Frequency:** Average 2.1 commits/day
- **Recent Activity:** Fluctuating between 5-30 commits/week

#### Contributor Landscape
- **Total Contributors:** 89
- **Top Contributor:** "devB" with 387 commits (14.3% of total)
- **Core Team:** 8 contributors account for 52% of commits
- **Community Contributions:** 48% of commits from non-core contributors

#### Code Change Patterns
- **Average Files Changed/Commit:** 5.8
- **Average Lines Changed/Commit:** 32.4
- **Median Files Changed:** 4
- **Median Lines Changed:** 14

#### Key Trends
1. **Feature-Driven Development:** Clear correlation between feature additions and commit spikes
2. **Bug Fix Patterns:** Regular clusters of small fixes following major releases
3. **Localization Efforts:** Periodic internationalization updates

## Comparative Analysis

### Development Velocity
- **Commit Frequency:** EventMesh shows slightly higher average daily commits (2.3 vs 2.1)
- **Project Maturity:** ShopXO has longer history but more variable activity
- **Growth Patterns:** EventMesh demonstrates linear growth; ShopXO shows cyclical patterns

### Community Structure
- **Contributor Concentration:** EventMesh has higher core team dominance (68% vs 52%)
- **Community Participation:** ShopXO benefits from broader contributor base
- **Onboarding:** ShopXO shows better retention of new contributors

### Change Characteristics
- **Change Scope:** EventMesh changes tend to be more focused (fewer files, more lines)
- **Change Frequency:** ShopXO has more frequent but smaller changes
- **Stability:** EventMesh shows more consistent change patterns

## Key Insights

1. **Project Governance Impact:**
   - EventMesh's enterprise backing results in more structured development
   - ShopXO's community-driven model fosters broader participation but less predictability

2. **Domain-Specific Patterns:**
   - Infrastructure projects (EventMesh) favor depth over breadth in changes
   - Application projects (ShopXO) require more distributed changes across components

3. **Sustainability Indicators:**
   - Both projects show healthy contributor growth
   - EventMesh's consistent activity suggests strong maintenance commitment
   - ShopXO's variability may reflect market-responsive development

4. **Community Dynamics:**
   - ShopXO's larger contributor base provides resilience
   - EventMesh's core team ensures architectural consistency

## Visualization Highlights

### EventMesh
1. **Commit Timeline:** ![EventMesh Monthly Commits](visuals/monthly_commits_eventmesh.png)
   - Shows steady growth with periodic maintenance spikes
2. **Contributor Distribution:** ![EventMesh Top Contributors](visuals/top_contributors_eventmesh.png)
   - Clear core team dominance with long tail of occasional contributors

### ShopXO
1. **Activity Patterns:** ![ShopXO Monthly Activity](visuals/shopxo_monthly_activity.png)
   - Visible feature release cycles followed by stabilization periods
2. **Change Distribution:** ![ShopXO Files Changed](visuals/shopxo_files_changed.png)
   - Demonstrates typical multi-file changes for feature implementations

### Comparative Views
1. **Growth Comparison:** ![Cumulative Commits Comparison](visuals/cumulative_commits.png)
   - EventMesh's linear growth vs ShopXO's step-wise progression
2. **Contributor Engagement:** ![Total Commits Comparison](visuals/total_commits.png)
   - Contrast between concentrated and distributed contribution models

## Technical Implementation Details

### Analysis Pipeline
1. **Data Collection:**
   - Repository cloning with GitPython
   - Commit history extraction
   - Change statistics calculation

2. **Processing:**
   - Temporal aggregation (daily, weekly, monthly)
   - Contributor classification
   - Change metric computation

3. **Visualization:**
   - Consistent styling across charts
   - Interactive exploration during development
   - High-resolution output for reporting

### Challenges Addressed
1. **Data Scale:**
   - Optimized processing for repositories with thousands of commits
   - Implemented caching for intermediate results

2. **Comparison Alignment:**
   - Normalized timelines for projects of different ages
   - Standardized metrics for fair comparison

3. **Visual Clarity:**
   - Careful outlier handling in box plots
   - Thoughtful color scheme selection for accessibility

## Conclusion

This analysis reveals distinct development patterns between infrastructure and application projects in open-source ecosystems. EventMesh exemplifies the structured approach common to middleware projects, while ShopXO demonstrates the adaptive nature of community-driven business applications. Both models prove successful but cater to different needs and constraints.

Key takeaways for open-source practitioners:
1. Project governance models significantly influence contribution patterns
2. Domain characteristics shape change characteristics
3. Both concentrated and distributed contribution models can be effective
4. Temporal analysis provides valuable maintenance insights

The methodologies developed for this analysis can be extended to other repositories, providing maintainers with valuable insights into their projects' health and trajectory.

## Future Work

Potential extensions to this analysis could include:
1. **Sentiment Analysis:** Examining commit messages for emotional tone
2. **Code Quality Metrics:** Incorporating complexity and test coverage analysis
3. **Network Analysis:** Mapping contributor collaboration patterns
4. **Issue Tracking Integration:** Correlating commits with issue resolution

## Appendix

### Data Files
- `eventmesh_comparison.json`: EventMesh metrics in machine-readable format
- `shopxo_stats.json`: ShopXO analysis results

### Scripts
- `report-eventmesh.py`: EventMesh analysis pipeline
- `report-shopxo.py`: ShopXO analysis pipeline
- `compare.py`: Comparative analysis implementation

### Generated Reports
- `report-eventmesh.md`: Complete EventMesh analysis
- `report-shopxo.md`: Complete ShopXO analysis
- `comparison_report.md`: Cross-project comparison

This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights for both project maintainers and open-source researchers, demonstrating how systematic repository analysis can reveal the underlying dynamics of software development projects.