patchgit(1): remove a defunct link to "list of authors"

The linked page has not been showing the promised "more complete list" for more than 6 months by now, and nobody has resurrected the list there nor elsewhere since then.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 * If somebody has a working replacement URL, we could use that
   instead, of course.  Takers?

 Documentation/git.txt | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

A possible alternative could be https://www.ohloh.net/p/git/contributors/summary

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Eh, I think just removing the link is sufficient.

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:09:51PM -0800, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

FYI, I just submitted a patch to add a contributors page to git-scm.com that looks similar to the old one. That patch being the sum total of my ruby and rails experience, I'd expect some re-working to be necessary before it is merged:

  https://github.com/github/gitscm-next/pull/216

So it probably makes sense to go ahead and drop the link from the manpage for now, and we can re-add it if the contributors page gets merged (in my patch, it has a different path, so we would need to tweak the URL eventually anyway).

-Peff

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Nice charts!

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

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.

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

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

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.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:04:40PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:

I agree that commit count is approximate. But counting merges is really quite a large factor of error (in git.git, it more than doubles Junio's count, and represents over 20% of the total number of commits).

The GitHub contributors page counts merges _and_ fails to use mailmap. Yuck. I'm working on fixing that now.

After the discussion in the PR, I am inclined to think the site (and possibly the manpage) should just point to some decent contributors graph (either GitHub, ohloh, or something else; suggestions welcome). Anything else is just recreating a crappy static version of something that could be much more dynamic and explorable.

I find the ohloh one a little more informative than the GitHub graph. I couldn't find any others (Google Code does not seem to have one, kernel.org and other gitweb sites do not, and I can't think of anywhere else that hosts a mirror).

-Peff

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Then let's do this.

-- >8 --
Subject: git(1): show link to contributor summary page

We earlier removed a link to list of contributors that pointed to a defunct page; let's use a working one from Ohloh.net to replace it instead.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/git.txt | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:06:24AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Looks good to me. Thanks.

-Peff