The first lines of source code were added to Jinja in 2007. Projects with recent activity, and a code base more than five years old are likely solving vital problems and delivering consistent value, and may be organized to reward sustained effort by an engaged team of contributors.
Such a lengthy source control history in conjunction with recent activity may indicate that this code base and community are important enough to attract long-term commitment, and may also indicate a mature and relatively bug-free code base.
Note: The source code for Jinja might actually be older than the source control history can reveal. Many new projects begin by incorporating a large amount of source code from existing, older projects. You might be able to tell whether this is the case by looking for a rapid rise in the amount of code early in the project's history.
Over the past twelve months, 14 developers contributed to Jinja. This project has a relatively large team, in the top 10% of all project teams on Open Hub.
For this measurement, Open Hub considers only recent changes to the code. Over the entire history of the project, 307 developers have contributed.
Jinja is written mostly in Python.
Across all Python projects on Open Hub, 24% of all source code lines are comments.
This holds true for Jinja as well. It contains the same ratio of comment lines to code lines as the majority of Python projects in Open Hub.
A high number of comments might indicate that the code is well-documented and organized, and could be a sign of a helpful and disciplined development team.
Over the last twelve months, Jinja has seen a substantial decrease in development activity. This could mean many things. It may be a warning sign that interest in this project is waning, or it may indicate a maturing code base that requires fewer fixes and changes. It is also possible that development on this project has moved to a new source control repository somewhere else.
Open Hub makes this determination by comparing the total number of commits made by all developers during the most recent twelve months with the same figure for the prior twelve months. The number of developers and total lines of code are not considered.