Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: > Digging deeper, I looked at the percent of patches for the top ten and > next ten for everything before GitLive-blead and then everything > after. > > 1-10 Before: 67% After: 68% > 11-20 Before: 9% After: 14% > > From that, it's clear that the pickup has been in the second rank. > What will be interesting to see is how the composition of the top > twenty changes over time. While 4 of the top 5 are pumpkings, only > half of the top ten are. For a number of reasons I'd be cautious about comparing 20 years of pre-git history with a year and a half of post-git, but I think you're right that the second and third tiers don't drop off quite as precipitously as before. I suspect that has more to do with jesse's recruitment efforts than with git, but every little bit helps. The problem is that while a dozen or two new people contributing a dozen or two patches a year is a good thing, it doesn't substantially address the burden/risk of one or two people authoring 500-1000 patches a year and no one else even coming close (and in the days of Jarkko that was one person authoring 1200-2500 patches a year). > I didn't think the expansion of commit bits was intended to > get more people applying other's patches. I thought it was to let > dual-life maintainers update their modules directly without burdening > the existing committers. Then some few of them (like me) have gone on > to apply patches. I think there are as many reasons for a commit bit as there are committers. I didn't mean to imply that anyone only pushing their own patches is doing something wrong, just that we're not keeping up and more committers hasn't helped much.Thread Previous | Thread Next