Re: [PATCH] git(1): remove a defunct link to "list of authors"

From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 10, 2012, 12:04 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8Dg1a0siDbiHtk4m1RhjLt-XKiS8kOO7qPKjwRczLF9vA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vboe2ct9p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>  * If somebody has a working replacement URL, we could use that
>>>>    instead, of course.  Takers?
>>>
>>> A possible alternative could be https://www.ohloh.net/p/git/contributors/summary
>>
>> Nice charts!
>
> Yup.
>
> Their numbers seem to be just 'any commit by the author, with
> mailmap applied', and I am of two minds with it.  Counting without
> "shortlog --no-merges", depending on the management style of the
> project, tends to credit the integrator too much.  Even though
> vetting the patches and choosing when to merge the topics is a
> significant contribution, it isn't *that* big compared to the work
> done by the contributor who took initiative to scratch that itch.
>
> With or without "--no-merges", the big picture you can get out of
> "git shortlog -s -n --since=1.year" does not change very much, but
> the headline numbers give a wrong impression.

These numbers are approximate anyway. Commit counts or the number of changed lines do not accurately reflect the effort in many cases. And about merges, in this particular case of Git where the maintainer imo has done an excellent job as a guard, I'd say it's the credit for reviewing, not simply merging.

But not using the link is fine too. We can wait for Jeff's patch to be merged.

> And of course, application of the mailmap is very important, if you
> want to get meaningful numbers out of shortlog over a longer period.

-- 
Duy