On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Robert Stoll <p...@tutteli.ch> wrote:
> > > > > > I do not think it makes sense to take the number of commits as metric. > > > People's commit behaviour is different. Some commit only once after > > > everything is done and others commit regularly after each achieved > > > small step towards the goal. > > > I belong rather to the second group. Why should I be favoured over > > > another person who has only one commit in his pull request? > > > > > > > > are you favored? > > I was just pointing out a factual error about a claim in an earlier > message and how other factors can influence the number of > > commits counted attributed to a person. > > > > Sorry, you obviously interpreted my message in a way I did not intend to > bring it over. I did not intend to attack you or something. I merely wanted > to point out that there are additional aspects which makes number of > commits a rather fuzzy metric. > If this metric were be used then people which commit more regularly would > be favoured and with committing regularly I do not mean implement many > features, fixing bugs etc. but just that they use the git command "commit" > more often than others. > > and I completely agree with that. replying to my email (which only corrected some numbers) seemed like you are assuming/projecting that it was my idea to bring those numbers to the discussion. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
