On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:03:49 -0300, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <gwidion@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 23 April 2004 08:10, Sven Neumann wrote: > > Raphaël Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Currently, I think that having a look at the ChangeLog is the best way > > > (although cumbersome) to figure out who is working on what. > > > [...] Some time ago, I wrote a script that parses > > > the GIMP ChangeLog files and tries to figure out who are the most > > > active developers. Maybe I should try to hack it a bit more. > > > > That sounds like something that should be done using the CVS > > information, not by parsing the ChangeLog. Perhaps have a look at > > statcvs, a CVS Repository statistic analysis tool. > > Would not that turn up just those who have CVS access? > Maybe a mix of both. Yes, and that's why I wrote the program parse_gimp_changelogs.pl in 2002. It scans the ChangeLog file(s) and for each entry, checks if the text mentions the name and/or e-mail address of some other person or the name of a patch file (e.g. gimp-<username>-<date yymmdd-n>.patch.gz). In this case, the author of the patch is credited for the update more than the one who commited the patch. That script was not very clean, though: it made some bad assumptions about how to find user names in comments and map them to the corresponding person. But that's why I said that "maybe I should try to hack it a bit more"... > Maybe split contributors in developers and small contributors. That way, > one looking on the about dialog would not have to wait ages to see your name > and Mitch's, for example. Hmmm... But then we could have endless debates about where we draw the line between developers and small contributors. Do we include only Sven, Mitch and Yosh as the main developers? Or do we take the top 20 contributors as developers? Or the top 50? Or...? Anyway, I don't think that we were discussing how to rank the various GIMP contributors, but rather how we can present to the users or potential contributors a summary of who is working on what. That should probably be grouped by "what" rather than by "who". In other words, we should try to generate automatically a list of contributors to each "area" of the GIMP. These areas could follow the layout of the source tree (sub-dirs in app and other top-level dirs) or could be grouped in a slightly different way. -Raphaël
