Jeff King wrote:
> We can probably help you with the git side of things, but defining "who
> contributed what" is kind of a hairy problem. You will need to define
> exactly how you want to count contributions.
Yes, that's pretty much what I'm looking for. My thoughts on
contribution run along much the same lines as yours -- there's a need to
distinguish between meaningful additions and mere tweaks.
My general rule is that stuff like whitespace changes, changing the name
of variables, typo corrections etc. is not a meaningful contribution
although if someone had really done a lot of it I might see things
differently. Substantial additions -- extending the code, comments or
documentation -- are what I'm after. Ultimately this has to be decided
by me actually looking at things rather than metrics.
What I'm doing right now is to run a git shortlog on a file to get a
rough idea of the contributors and who are likely to be the main
authors, then using gitk to browse the commits for that file. It's
time-consuming but works -- once I've identified at least one major
commit from someone I can ignore everything else by them and concentrate
on the remaining contributors.
What would help is some way to speed up the process of getting someone's
commits: 'give me all the diffs for file X by author Y'. I'm not too
good at shell scripting so grep-y things don't spring easily to mind.
An alternative useful tool would be 'give me all the commits to this
file that change more than N lines'.
With those two -- particularly the first -- I think I'd be able to get a
fair way. It won't work for the files where there has been a lot of
moving of content or renames, but that's mostly in the docs -- the code,
which is the really important thing, doesn't seem so bad (so far).
Thanks very much for the advice and careful thoughts,
Best wishes,
-- Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html