The 0voice/expert_readed_books repository, a curated collection of recommended reading materials for engineers and professionals, has seen minimal development activity over the past 30 days, with no new commits or pull requests. The project aims to provide insights on books across various domains such as computer science, software technology, and entrepreneurship.
Recent issues highlight significant challenges concerning file accessibility and usability. Users have reported difficulties with downloading large files (#9), accessing specific book formats (#6), and requests for English versions of texts (#8). These issues collectively suggest that the repository's content accessibility is a major concern, potentially affecting user engagement.
The team has shown limited recent activity, primarily focusing on documentation rather than new developments or bug fixes.
| Timespan | Opened | Closed | Comments | Labeled | Milestones |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Days | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 Days | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 90 Days | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 Year | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| All Time | 10 | 3 | - | - | - |
Like all software activity quantification, these numbers are imperfect but sometimes useful. Comments, Labels, and Milestones refer to those issues opened in the timespan in question.
The 0voice/expert_readed_books repository currently has 7 open issues, with the most recent activity occurring within the last 383 days. Notably, there are several recurring themes among the issues, including difficulties related to downloading large files, accessing specific book formats, and requests for English versions of texts. This suggests that users are facing significant challenges with the repository's content accessibility and usability, which may hinder user engagement and satisfaction.
A particularly striking anomaly is the presence of multiple unresolved issues concerning file access and format problems, such as Issue #9 regarding cloning difficulties due to file size and Issue #6 about a PDF that cannot be opened. These unresolved issues could indicate a lack of active maintenance or support for users experiencing technical difficulties. Additionally, the repository has not seen any new contributions or updates in a significant amount of time, which may reflect stagnation despite its popularity.
Issue #9: 文件太大，clone 总是中断
Issue #10: Telegram
Issue #8: Help please! (English Version)
Issue #7: 浪潮之巅 这本书后面是乱码，不知道是加密了还是epub文件有问题
Issue #6: expert_readed_books/软件技术/精通脚本黑客.pdf， 这本无法打开
These issues highlight critical areas where user experience is compromised, particularly around file accessibility and format integrity, which could deter potential users from utilizing the repository effectively.
The analysis of pull requests (PRs) for the 0voice/expert_readed_books repository reveals a limited but significant activity, with one open PR and one closed PR. The open PR, created over three months ago, aims to add a new book to the repository, while the closed PR was initiated over three years ago and has since been removed.
The current state of pull requests in the 0voice/expert_readed_books repository highlights several key themes and concerns regarding community engagement, project activity, and content management.
Firstly, the presence of only one open PR (#13) indicates a stagnation in contributions despite the repository's popularity, as evidenced by its high star count (7,192) and forks (2,375). The fact that this PR has remained open for over three months without further comments or reviews suggests a lack of active maintenance or responsiveness from the repository's maintainers. This could discourage potential contributors who may feel their efforts are not valued or acknowledged.
Secondly, the closed PR (#3) raises questions about content curation within the repository. The deletion of a book suggests that there is some level of oversight regarding what materials are included in the collection. However, it also points to an inconsistency in how content is managed—if books can be removed without clear communication or rationale, it may lead to confusion among users about the criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
Moreover, the overall low frequency of commits (71 total since its creation in August 2019) reinforces the notion that this repository functions more as a curated list rather than an actively developed project. While this approach can be beneficial for maintaining focus on quality over quantity, it also raises concerns about how up-to-date and relevant the information remains. The last update was noted as June 11, 2024, which may indicate that contributors are not regularly adding new materials or engaging with existing content.
In conclusion, while the 0voice/expert_readed_books repository serves as a valuable resource for engineers seeking recommended literature, its current pull request activity reflects broader issues related to community engagement and content management. To enhance its effectiveness and encourage more contributions, it would be beneficial for maintainers to actively review and respond to pull requests and comments, establish clearer guidelines for content inclusion, and consider regular updates to keep the repository dynamic and relevant.
wangbojing
王博靖 (wangbojing)
wenchao1024
410974689
GengXY
hanaper
wangbojing: Last active 97 days ago, primarily focused on updating the README.md file. Previous contributions include multiple updates and file uploads over the last few years.
王博靖 (wangbojing): Engaged in similar activities as above, with a significant number of README.md updates and file uploads noted over the past 558 days.
wenchao1024: Contributed to README.md updates intermittently, with the last commit recorded 1153 days ago.
410974689: Active in adding files and updating README.md, with multiple uploads recorded around 1160 days ago.
GengXY: Contributed by uploading files and creating new documents related to various books, with activity noted around 1547 days ago.
hanaper: Last contributed to README.md 1177 days ago.
Inactivity: The most recent commit was made 97 days ago, indicating a significant lull in development activity. The last substantial contributions date back several hundred days.
Focus on Documentation: The majority of recent commits involve updates to the README.md file, suggesting an emphasis on improving documentation rather than developing new features or fixing bugs.
File Uploads: There is a recurring pattern of members uploading files related to books, indicating that the repository serves more as a compilation of resources rather than an actively maintained software project.
Limited Collaboration: Most contributions appear to be individual efforts rather than collaborative work among team members, as evidenced by the lack of joint commits or mentions of collaboration in recent activities.
Project Stability: Given the high star count but low commit frequency, it seems the project is stable and serves its purpose as a curated collection rather than requiring frequent updates or active development.
The development team has shown minimal recent activity with a focus on documentation updates and file uploads related to book resources. The project appears stable but lacks ongoing collaborative development efforts.
Summary
Quantified Reports
Detailed Reports