Sometimes I wonder if the world’s so small,
Can we ever get away from the sprawl?
So these days, most people prefer to use an IDE to navigate their source code. This has often been greeted with some defensive elitism of the “real programmers” kind since the early days of the open sourcing of StarOffice. One does not simply load a code base the size of LibreOffice in your wimpy IDE: while it is possible somehow in the end, its a lot more trouble than its worth to manually set up e.g. all the include path manually to get the fancy stuff like autocompletion. Add to that, that e.g. UNO headers are generated during the build and header were at distributed over multiple IDE unfriendly locations, with many headers even available as copies from multiple locations, before we fixed that.
All these things are fixed now. And while LibreOffice still is a huge beast with our new build system we can get a holistic view of what needs to get build where, how and when. This makes it easy, almost trivial to generate an IDE project file from the build system. And to prove this point, I did just that for the kdevelop IDE. This isnt limited in principle to this one IDE — in fact the kdevelop specific part of this is some 150 lines of Python. So no matter what IDE you use: Eclipse, Netbeans, Anjuta, Visual Studio, Code::Blocks or XCode — you should be able to adapt this. In fact, while writing this, I find there is already work going on for XCode. Feel invited to join the party and make LibreOffice trivially buildable in your favourite IDE!
So as announced to the developer list, this allows you to make navigating, editing, building, testing and running LibreOffice much easier, giving you features like:
- building a module from the IDE
- building all of LibreOffice from the IDE
- nondebug and debug build configs for the above
- starting LibreOffice from the IDE
- running unitchecks, slowchecks and subsequentchecks from the IDE
Dont believe it? Here is a video featuring a stuttering german guy (me) on the audio track showing this:
If you want to show this around on social media, there is also a shorter version featuring the essentials (make sure to link to the HD versions).
A closing note: A long time, common IDEs embrace and extended into the buildsystems so once you used an IDE, you could only use this one IDE and no other. In retrospect, this is obviously doing it wrong. With the current approach, we can make LibreOffice easily buildable in any IDE on any platform. A very important fact for a product available on so many platforms.
addendum: As Karl Fogel wrote “LibreOffice is now ridiculously easy to build.“ before we even had this, it just shows that one can always do better.
He asked me if I’d seen a road with so much dust and sand.
And I said, “Listen, I’ve travelled every road in this here land!”
I’ve been everywhere, man.
I’ve been everywhere, man.
So about a month ago I travelled in one week from Hamburg via Zürich and San Francisco to Oakland and then via San Francisco, Munich and Basel to Freiburg to attend the LibreOffice Hackfest Freiburg 2013 and back to Hamburg. The Freiburg Hackfest is the third and last Hackevent we had in Germany this year (after the Impress Sprint in Dresden and the Hackfest in Hamburg) nicely accompanying the international events like the LibreOffice conference in Milan and our usual presence at FOSDEM.
I have to admit that I arrived at this event with some travel fatigue and some upcoming Ubuflu, so I was not too productive myself, but its good to see fixes like for example in the kde integration (Jan-Marek), in Calc (Eilidh), for enabling bitcoin donations (Florian), to mail merge (again Jan-Marek), to Math (Marcos), for the build system (Michael and David) happening (or at least be prepared at the event). A big “Thank You” to all the angels of the Chaos Computer Club Freiburg that organized the event — when I learned that I would need to travel to the US right before this, I had some doubts if it would result in “remote-organization-troubles” given this was a first time in Freiburg. This was completely unfounded, the support of our hosts was amazing and they seemed to have made a deal with Eris to take revenge for the original snub somewhere else on this weekend.
So, given that I did not do much coding (just some preparation for the KDevelop integration for LibreOffice, more on that later), what can I offer you? Catcontent was not available (no cats at this Hackfest), so I give you the second best thing: the deputy chairman of the board of the Document Foundation patrolling the premises on a skateboard:
So, whats next? FOSDEM! We will of course be there again, and back-to-back with the event we will have a user experience Hackfest in Bruessels. So come and join us:
Take the corner, going to crash
Headlights, head on, headlines
Another junkie lives too fast
Yeah, lives way too fast, fast, fast, woh
So, LibreOffice 4.2.0 alpha1 has been tagged upstream a week ago. It is an alpha release, essentially only a tagged snapshot of the LibreOffice master branch and as such might eat your kitten and kill unsuspecting relatives. On the other hand, if you absolutely are of the type that Metallica roars about in the above quote and therefore you are running the development release of Ubuntu (trusty tahr, which will become Ubuntu 14.04 LTS), you can add the LibreOffice prereleases PPA and try it out and report bugs. Of course, you should not use this in a production environment of any kind!
Im happy to see that this build available again a week earlier than last year, as early testing allows more bugs to be triaged and fixed in time. The more important difference though is that last year, the alpha version was build on the stable and released version of Ubuntu, while this year the version is already build against the early and moving development version of Ubuntu.
We gonna do what they say can’t be done
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there
So, the LibreOffice conference in Milan is just past us and it was awesome — if you missed it, Kohei posted a very nice set of pictures from that event. If you are interested in the talks too, you can find both streams and slides for almost all the talks. One other talk from the conference, I would like to hightlight is Michael Stahls gbuild talk — it was a long journey from when gbuild was still a pet project of mine, but now as the migration is now finished, things unlocked and we (*) are now really reaping what we sowed.
Almost, as e.g. while I was able and eager to send the slides for the lightning talks I moderated, I somehow forgot to do so for my own slides for my talk on tb3. It will hopefully end up on the conference site at some point, but for now I uploaded at at speakerdeck (with the odp originals on the wiki and here):
I didnt bring my own camera and thus missed making pictures during e.g. the lively QA roundtable, but Rob made sure that we get at least some photo on the last day (when many were already on the way home):
So in the next days, I will be hopping over atlantic for a visit to the west coast, just to return to turn “eastbound and down, loaded up and trucking” to be at Freiburg for the Hackfest again. A big Thank You in advance to Tauon and Florian Effenberger, who took over a lot of my organizer duties on this one due to this tight scheduling. Oh, and of course, I hope to see many of you there!
(*) actually they: By far, the most awesome stuff is now done by others than me
I’m easy like Sunday morning
That’s why I’m easy
I’m easy like Sunday morning
So, Ubuntu 13.10 (Saucy Salamander) was released into the wild and comes with a fresh LibreOffice version: 4.1.2. Since the last major version of LibreOffice (4.0) was branched off, 11.034 commits by more than 200 different committers were done upstream up to the release that is now in Ubuntu 13.10. (*) The LibreOffice 4.1 features and fixes page gives an overview what is new with this release: rotating images, embedded fonts, improved interoperability — to name a few.
In the Ubuntu/Debian packaging repository, some 513 commits by 5 authors have been done between the version Ubuntu 13.04 was released with and the just released version. The majority of those commits have been done by Rene Engelhard of Debian. A big “Thank you” for all that work! Now leaving this release behind with a “Girl, Im leaving you tomorrow” on my mind, I am looking forward to what the name for Ubuntu t-series will be, as there does not seem to be an announcement yet (although there have been eager suggestions), start to brace myself for the early cycle madness again and prepare to make sure that Ubuntu t-series will get the best LibreOffice 4.2.
So much for looking backwards. A lot of people are shy and assume they could never be one of the contributors making a dent in LibreOffice, or even get started. Let me show you how wrong that assumption is:
This little chart shows Easy Hacks resolved by newcomers to the project. Easy Hacks are tasks that get need to be done on LibreOffice and can be done without understanding all of the million lines of code and more than 20 years of history — quite a few do not even require C++ skills. They are specifically selected for that — and if you run into any trouble solving those, you can jump in at #libreoffice-dev to get help. So get yourself a LibreOffice build (here’s a video on how easy that is on Ubuntu — with dubstep soundtrack), find yourself an Easy Hack and get going!
(*) I didnt bother to check for the exact number, because checking for duplicates in email addresses is tiresome.
Note: An earlier version of this post talked about 22.000 commits — that was an error on my part fiddling with the scripting late at night.
Go, Greased Lightnin’
You’re burnin’ up the quarter mile
So the conference schedule for the LibreOffice conference in Milan has just been published. The talks, workshops and sessions on the schedule encompass only the so far officially registered sessions. If you have another exciting and urgent topic that you want to share with the others at the conference, you may still get to present a lightning talk in the session on Thursday after lunch!
For that, just send a email to firstname.lastname@example.org right now containing:
- your name
- the title of your talk
- the length/format you want to use:
- freeform 5 minutes (*) lightning talk
- Pecha Kucha talk (20 slides, 20 seconds each = 6 minutes 20 seconds)
Excited to see you all in Milan next week!
(*) changed from 15 minutes earlier as there has been more demand for 5 minutes freeform than for 15 minutes sessions.
I’ve got the power.
So, Im back from vacation. One of the things I did was reorganizing my hardware, and for doing so, I bought a wattmeter to measure what my machines and toys actually consume. A lot of the stuff was what I expected, but there where a few nasty surprises:
| (all values in Watt)
||Ideapad S12||Thinkpad W520||Bertha||TV||Pandaboard ES|
|power supply only||0||0.2||2.5||0.3||0.1|
|desktop w/o display||13||10||122||130||6.1|
From this set a few surprising takeaways:
- The wimpy Ideapad S12 with its Atom CPU eats more power when idling than the Thinkpad W520 with its beefy i7 Quad-Core and 16GB of RAM (13 Watts vs. 10 Watts).
- My TV doing nothing but waiting for the remote to tell it to turn itself on eats more power that each of my notebooks (15 Watts vs. 10/13 Watts).
- Running my desktop (Bertha) as an tinderbox for LibreOffice 24/7 would cost me ~1.000EUR per annum. Doing it with three of those boxes would a very expensive and noisy alternative to what others sell as a room heater.
- My TV eats 30 Watts more when displaying the black screen of a disconnected HDMI signal than with normal TV display. Maybe its expensive to search for a signal?
- Compiling LibreOffice without ccache on my Notebook kicks the power consumption to 90 Watts — but only for a few minutes. Then the thermal controls throttle the machine down to 70 or even 35 Watts, which seems all the machine can disperse over sustained periods.
And then there where these leftover pieces to measure, no surprises there, just a confirmation of my suspicion that the old Asus notebook I run as a home server is eating way too much power:
|(all values in Watt)
||bits and pieces|
|mic preamp off||1.1|
|mic preamp on||10|
|“home server” (decommissioned Asus Z53 notebook)||30|
My tentative conclusions are:
- replacing my old “home server” with something ARM-based like a Raspberry Pi or a Pandaboard breaks even after one year — I should do that.
- Even when under load, a ARM-based Pandaboard has a modest power consumption.
- I will completely turn off my TV on principle as the standby consumption is just pure impudence. As a bonus it prevents my BluRay player from kicking on the 100 Watt TV when I throw in a audio CD (Thanks Panasonic, for providing this excellent and “useful” integration).
- A cheap Netbook might be less powerful, but it hardly consumes less than a high-end Notebook when idling. You get what you pay for.
- I bought a cooler for my Notebook, hoping to unlock it from choking itself with thermal restriction. It should be a good idea in general as the logs not only talked about throttling, but also about more scary MCEs.
- Buying a wattmeter is a good decision, when you run nontrivial amounts of hardware.
Addendum: The 2.5 Watts for Bertha when off may seem bad — but its not at all, if you consider it is running a lights-out management on that.
Stop right there I gotta know right now before we go any further
Let me sleep on it and I’ll give you an answer in the morning
So, I did some work recently to possibly make our tinderboxes more efficient and scalable — which is a bit ironic as I recently hinted others at Paul Grahams advise to “do things that do not scale”. At LibreOffice we currently have tinderbox setup that served us as good as it could in the first years: It gave a quick overview of the basic health of current development branch of LibreOffice. But LibreOffice takes some time to build and test and with 50-100 commits to master each day it is playing catch-up with a moving target.
And whle they did a good job at this, they also have a few distinct weaknesses: For one, these tinderboxes would also mail everyone who commited on a branch since the last known good build if they were unhappy. Since they do not know anything about each other, with a generic breaker each tinderbox would do that on its own. In a tragic imitation of a certain comic this would result in the incremental Linux tinderbox reporting after 5 minutes something went wrong, with all the other tinderboxes dribbling in with the same message over time, finalized by the full Windows build tinderbox excitedly reporting to 200 people (as a slow builder would have more commits between builds) that something was amiss — possibly hours after it was fixed again. This resulted in these messages being filtered away by most users and even worse: the Windows tinderbox reports, which should be the most useful of them, as most developers use Linux as development platform, being easily ignored as “someone else broke it”.
So I set out improve the situation with the initial goal:
- to start make tinderboxes being able to coordinate
- to make it possible to easily collate the information from multiple builders
- while leaving the control over what is build with the owner of the tinderbox (as most of these boxes are sponsored, we dont want to make them into drones)
- for slow platforms like Windows or ARM enable bisecting a breaker as the frequency of builds is too low for those in the commit range to feel personally responsible
- while bisecting a breaker, also keep an eye one the branch moving forward (as in: dont try to bisect a breaker further when it was fixed in the meantime)
And I am happy to report to have reached this initial goal with tb3 which is a tinderbox coordinator written in Python3 and having as many lines of codes for unittests as for the product itself. So how is tb3 intended to work?
Leaving control over what is build with the owner of the tinderbox
tb3 is build around the idea, that the information about the state of the source is collected and managed by a central “tinderbox coordinator” and one or more tinderboxes go to it to:
- ask for something to build, giving the coordinator a branch and a platform that they are interested to work for
- report that they have started to build a certain state and give an estimate on when they will be finished
- report that they have finished to build a certain state and give a result
Note that the first two steps are separate: The tinderbox is essentially just asking for a suggestion on what to build — its not promising to actually follow these proposals. It can come back and report to be building something completely different(*). Now the proposals the coordinator hands out come with a score. Just looking at a classical tinderbox mode, which will always build the current HEAD of a branch on a specific platform, the score of the highest ranking proposal will be equal to the number of commits since the last finished build. With tb3, a tinderbox can watch multiple branches (e.g. a development branch and a release branch) and commit itself to building the one which saw the most commits since the last finished. It can also use multipliers and use something like “if there are 10 times as many new commits on the development branch as on the release branch, then build that, otherwise stick to the release branch” or use limits: “I only want run a build if there are at least 5 new commits”.
Coordinating multiple tinderboxes
So how do we coordinate multiple tinderboxes and ensure that e.g. if someone pushes 9 commits to master, we do not get five Linux tinderboxes to build that last commit and then sprinkle everyones mailbox over the next hour? Here is where the “coordinator” part truly kicks in. The first tinderbox that asks for something to build will get proposals with scores as shown by the green line in the chart below: The highest score is the “9″ of the newest commit — the commit that has the biggest distance from the last build. If the first tinderbox reported to have taken on that proposed build, what would a second tinderbox that also asks to build something see? It makes little sense to give it the same build as the first tinderbox. Optimistically assuming that tinderbox will report something back, the best thing this second box can do is build something with the biggest distance to to the finished build and to the build running on the first tinderbox. As such, the coordinator will send it scored as denoted by the blue line and if the tinderbox accepts it will build commit 5 — which is why a third tinderbox asking for something to build, while the other two are running, will get proposals as per the pink line and thus be suggested to build commit 3.
Trusting tinderboxes … a bit
Now these tinderboxes “promised” to build some commit. But can we give the tinderbox unconstrained trust? E.g. should we never ever tell any other tinderbox to build this one commit, because some other tinderbox promised to build it? The answer is obviously no: As a tinderbox is a gift, the owner should be allowed to reboot or reassign a tinderbox for other tasks at any time with imprudence. This is why the tinderbox gives the coordinator an estimated duration for its build and the tinderbox coordinator “reserves” this commit for that time. As you did see in the last chart the commit that just had a tinderbox running got scores of zero. As time goes by the coodinator looses trust in the tinderbox to still report back: the chart below shows the scores given after twice the time the tinderbox gave as an estimate has passed. You see the blue line now scores highest at commit 6, not commit 5 and the pink line scores highest at commit 5, not commit 3 — so as the coordinator looses trust in the running tinderboxes to come back, it again proposes to do builds closer to the already scheduled ones.
Another thing to note is that the highest score is rising: While in the first chart, each running tinderbox lowered the highest score by one (green line: highest at 9, blue line: highest at 8, pink line: highest at 7) after twice the time has passed, the highscores are all around 9 again.
Bisecting a breaker
Should a branch be broken, it usually would be very helpful if the tinderboxes would help bisecting. This is especially true for slow platforms and builds like Windows, ARM or the document load torturer by Markus. However, we do not want the tinderbox to over fixate on that, as our branch is a moving target. If there is a build breaker somewhere in a range of 256 commits, we do not want a slow tinderbox to bust away for 8 builds to find the offending one, and while doing that leave the head of the branch unwatched for a long time. So by default, the bisecting proposals have a highscore that is equal to the number of commits to bisect still. As such, by default, a tinderbox will be told to bisect — as long as:
- the head of the branch is still broken
- there are more commits in the bisect range, than there are new commit on the branch.
Otherwise, the tinderbox will be told to build the latest commit, to check if the branch is still broken or fixed in the meantime. As such the coordinator will guard against commiting tinderboxes to bisect a breaker that was already fixed. Therefore the coordinator knows a few more states than plain ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for a commit:
- UNKNOWN — nothing known yet
- RUNNING — a tinderbox is currently claiming to run this commit
- GOOD — a tinderbox was happy with it
- BAD — a tinderbox was unhappy with it
- ASSUMED_GOOD — not tested, but the previous and the next finished build were good
- ASSUMED_BAD — not tested, but the previous and the next finished build were bad
- POSSIBLY_BREAKING — not tested, but the previous finished build was good and the next finished build was bad
- POSSIBLY_FIXING — not tested, but the previous finished build was bad and the next finished build was good
- BREAKING — this one was bad, while the previous commit was good
Here is some example output
$ ./tb3-show-history --repo ~/checkouts/core.git --platform linux --branch 65134fb75c3e94b7869fb6d490f88bf4b252760e --history-count 10 65134fb75c3e94b7869fb6d490f88bf4b252760e started on 2013-07-25 17:27:30.383767 with builder ubuntu-tinderbox and finished on 2013-07-25 17:40:41.226494 -- artifacts at 65134fb75c3e94b7869fb6d490f88bf4b252760e-137476605045.out, state: BAD (took 0:13:10.842727) 6100d94078d37cb1413a0e45460cee480ba3e211 started on None with builder None and finished on None -- artifacts at None, state: ASSUMED_BAD 24d46ea66485ff8b5bca49ec587b41547787bf42 started on None with builder None and finished on None -- artifacts at None, state: ASSUMED_BAD d041980a7aad0e6d111752ca98db42f9853a3c6b started on 2013-07-25 17:40:52.587150 with builder ubuntu-tinderbox and finished on 2013-07-25 17:53:04.204549 -- artifacts at d041980a7aad0e6d111752ca98db42f9853a3c6b-137476685269.out, state: BAD (took 0:12:11.617399) 3b28ec6855e5df0629427752d7dafae1f0a277d4 started on None with builder None and finished on None -- artifacts at None, state: ASSUMED_BAD cca0b9ae02603ab88ec7d8810aab2a8a1b4efda2 started on 2013-07-25 18:08:01.201013 with builder ubuntu-tinderbox and finished on 2013-07-25 18:20:39.536451 -- artifacts at cca0b9ae02603ab88ec7d8810aab2a8a1b4efda2-137476848124.out, state: BREAKING (took 0:12:38.335438) 767b02bd7614059dd80d0cd1be306d9b63291f31 started on 2013-07-25 17:53:14.745394 with builder ubuntu-tinderbox and finished on 2013-07-25 18:07:42.527839 -- artifacts at 767b02bd7614059dd80d0cd1be306d9b63291f31-137476759480.out, state: GOOD (took 0:14:27.782445) c852f83bc4d91de51c61ad4be0edf1b848247eaa started on None with builder None and finished on None -- artifacts at None, state: ASSUMED_GOOD 0d874ee2e452ea67c03a27bf1a7f26d0ffc617dc started on None with builder None and finished on None -- artifacts at None, state: ASSUMED_GOOD ff14c3b595ebe71153f97ebb8871cf024ea76959 started on 2013-07-25 17:12:58.024727 with builder ubuntu-tinderbox and finished on 2013-07-25 17:27:17.439374 -- artifacts at ff14c3b595ebe71153f97ebb8871cf024ea76959-137476517809.out, state: GOOD (took 0:14:19.414647)
Some details and missing bits
The coordinator stores the results in git notes as JSON objects. This has multiple advantages: There is no need for a external database and the state of the notes are under revision control. It also has one disadvantage: Its not exactly quick. However the revision control can help to mitigate that mostly — as e.g. a webfrontend can easily ask: “what changed on the state since I last polled you?” and do incremental updates from there.
Which brings me to the missing bits: The stuff that tells the world the state of the repo on a webfrontend, RSS feed, IRC Bots or via email digests. The second missing bit is some kind of privilege separating between the tinderboxes and the coordinator. tb3 is currently churning away on the Sun Ultra 24 that I donated to the Document Foundation doing duty as an Ubuntu tinderbox, but coordinator and tinderbox are still running on the same account — even though as separate processes. As setuid for scripts is messy business, I plan to give tb3 a trivial REST-like interface on a non-public HTTP server. In addition to being able to offload the authentication and authorization problems outside of tb3 to something considering it a solved problem, it also makes integration in webfrontends etc. simple (esp. given that all the data is in JSON already anyway.)
In the long run, the scoring of tb3 also should make it easier for the buildbots that do duty on gerrit to make a call on if they should test build something there or if their help is more needed for tinderbox duty.
- coordinate multiple tinderboxes working on the same build scenario or branch
- coordinate one tinderbox working on multiple build scenarios or multiple branches
- make tinderboxes bisect without loosing sight of the head of a branch
- especially help tests and builds that are painfully slow
They can also create builds for bibisect along the way, but that is a story for another day.
(*) This is helpful for some test suites like e.g. subsequentcheck. If you do a build as proposed by the coordinator, you can cheaply report back the result of the build only. And since you then can just the subsequentcheck test suite on top of the build of that commit (and only on that commit), you can then report to be running these tests and report the results without ever caring if the coordinator thinks this commit has as high priority for this.
postscriptum: Yeah, I know, I promised to be on vacation now and not harass you with any posts, but this is a scheduled blogpost and as such does not count.
Whoomp! There it is …
After having uploaded slides already quite some time ago, its time for some update. So I added slides to the talks I gave at FISL 14 and 29c3 and added some video links to the descriptions for the FISL, 29c3 and the LibreOffice conference 2012 talks. Here are all the slides. And with that last long pending task done, I will bolt out for vacation. Enjoy!
Hey ho, let’s go
Hey ho, let’s go
They’re forming in a straight line
They’re going through a tight wind
Italo wrote this nice overview on the history of LibreOffice giving a somewhat nostalgic view back on the early days and some good statistics on what we achieved since then, so when I posted the postmortem on LibreOffice 3.6 yesterday there were some questions on the numbers beyond the LibreOffice 3.6 series. Well, without further ado here they are:(*)
There is some healthy growth in fixes going in each release although it somewhat slowed down(**) around the 3.6 series as the amount of bugfixes grew in a way that made it quite some extra work to keep up with their administration purely on a mailing list. Luckily, this is were gerrit came into play: In the 4.0 series most commits (77%) are reviewed on gerrit, which steamlined the work in a way that made the rate of fixes climbing again(***), so that the current LibreOffice 4.0.4 has more bugfixes in a minor release than any previous version that early in the cycle.
Note though that these bug fix counts can not be simply added for a multitude of reasons:
- some bugfixes go into multiple releases (because there is more than one active branch at any given time)
- some bugfixes do not get accounted for in the bug tracker
- many (in fact most of the exciting and interesting ones) go into the major series updates and not into a minor bugfix update
So how many bugs did LibreOffice resolve since it started? Its hard to tell, because these issues are not always tracked in one issue tracker(****). However, this table from bugzilla gives a lower bound. As of 2013-07-23, the LibreOffice project resolved 12.596 bug reports on its own issue tracker, half of those fixed by developers, half of those hunted down and triaged by the QA team:
- 4.389 bug reports were intentionally fixed by developers (resolution: FIXED)
- 2.123 bug reports were unintentionally fixed by developers and then found fixed by the QA team (resolution: WORKSFORME — sometimes one bug causes multiple symptoms, so a fix for one bug report might also solve another that the developer is not aware of)
- 3.003 bug reports were identified as a duplicate of an existing report by the QA team (resolution: DUPLICATE)
- 3.081 bug reports were found to be invalid of some kind (resolution: INVALID, NOTABUG, NOTOURBUG, …)
So in summary: Since it started and as of 2013-07-23, the LibreOffice project in total at least fixed 6.512 issues and resolved 12.596 bug reports from its own issue tracker.
(*) A note on the minor release bug fix counts: They are just scraped off from the ChangeLog pages like https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Releases/4.0.4/RC1 — esp. for older releases these might still be a bit off.
(**) note that the 3.6 series was alive 3 month longer than 3.5 (~35% more time), without receiving the same amount of additional fixes.
(***) To the tune of the Ramones quoted above.
(****) For example, at the time of writing, there are 256 resolved issues in launchpad tracking bugs at LibreOffice of 1969 resolved issues filed against LibreOffice on Ubuntu in total as only a subset of well-triaged and hard to fix issues is upstreamed. So the numbers given above are not conflicting at all with e.g. the estimate of 3.000 bug fixes in LibreOffice 4.1 alone. See the development FAQ for an overview of common issue trackers referenced in commit messages.