There is a limitation when looking at hotspots—when is a particular module hot? We’ve just used whatever happened to be the maximum number of revisions in the specified temporal period. What if that number was 3? Or 845? Without any context, they’re just numbers.

In Part III, you’ll learn about analyses that normalize the data. For now we’re going to ignore that; in practice, the non-normalized data we’re working on is generally good enough as a guide. We use the relative rank within a codebase to identify hotspots. Before we move on, I just wanted you to be aware of when this might not work.
The hotspots you’ll find depend on the temporal period you defined when preparing the files. This can be tricky to get right. By using version-control data, we get a picture of how we actually interact with the system. Over time, our development focus shifts, and the hotspots will also shift. Similarly, as design issues get resolved, hotspots cool down. If they don’t, that means the problem still exists.
Finally, individual commit styles may bias the data; some developers commit small, isolated changes, while others prefer a big-bang commit style. I’ve never experienced this as a problem myself, since features and changes tend to be developed on branches, and we perform our analyses on the master branch or trunk. That said, even if your analysis works fine, you have a lot to gain by getting your team to adopt a shared convention for all commits. It simplifies your workflow.