On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:19:07PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > However the mailing list participation numbers there doesn't really > help me: > > ~/git-ml$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne > 3721 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> > 2166 Stefan Beller <stefanbel...@gmail.com> > 2071 Jeff King <p...@peff.net> > > and I certainly do not provide as much value as Junio or you do; > I am just good at resending long patch series to drive up the email > count. But I think that data would be also interesting to look at if > we were to find out what drives the community. > > Maybe some derived metrics posts on mailing list divided by > commits appearing in origin/next can guide if one is a effective > contributor; but then as you said there are other ways to contribute > effectively as well.
You could probably just drop any emails that start with "[PATCH" from your count. They are ultimately counted separately in "git shortlog" on the actual repo. And if you are sending tons of re-rolls you just do not get any credit. ;) The rabbit hole is deep there, though. Is it productive to have bugs in your patch which force somebody else to reply (they get a point, good), and then you have to respond explaining what's going on (you get a point, bad, since you're now ahead of a hypothetical you who didn't have the bug in the first place). So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a rough view on who is active. > Reviewing and bug triage do show up in the mailing > list but not as commits in git.git, but the numbers alone would > not hint at the quality. In fact the opposite is the case: if you only > need one email to diagnose a bug, suggest a workaround and > include a proper patch, it is more helpful to the community than > having more emails, potentially going back and forth. Yep, another good example. More emails may mean you are incompetent at diagnosing, or it may mean you are digging on a particularly hard problem. -Peff
