On 03/16/2016 01:33 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I'm curious what the inherent benefit is of having multiple people
collaborate on a patch, as opposed to having a series of patches by
different people, each of which advances the product incrementally. At
least, it sounded like you (Rob) were advocating collaboration for its
own sake.
Here are some numbers from the Parsoid codebase to show patches that had
an explicit co-author tag. This doesn't account for other patches where
someone other than the author tweaked the patch slightly (that doesn't
quite count as co-authoring) and merged them.
[subbu@earth bin] git log --oneline --no-merges | wc
5465 50651 349772
[subbu@earth bin] git log | grep -i Co-author | wc
18 82 1013
Not a whole lot, but a non-trivial number of patches.
Here are two patches that had the co-author tag:
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/238957/
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/181177/
Both were tricky pieces of code to get right. Sometimes, it is hard to
communicate a fix / problem in a patch via review comments. It is easier
to write the code and show. Sometimes, that is simply the best way to
address a problem. Sometimes, the original author is lost in some other
project / is on vacation / ... whatever ... and patch needs to be pushed
forward.
Subbu.
_______________________________________________
teampractices mailing list
teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
