On 2024-Dec-05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 7:46 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > No corrections here -- I noticed nothing wrong with the commits I am
> > involved with, in a quick read. I did notice that for patches with
> > multiple authors, only the first one is listed. For instance,
> > 53c2a97a926's author ("Improve performance of subsystems on top of
> > SLRU") is listed as Andrey Borodin, leaving Dilip Kumar out. I realize
> > that addressing this would complicate the schema and queries, but maybe
> > it's worth thinking about for next time. We have plenty of patches with
> > multiple authors, after all.
>
> I agree, but I don't know how to apportion the work between the
> authors. I think dividing credit equally between two or three authors
> would often be very unfair to the first author. If we want to annotate
> commit messages in a way that allows me to apportion credit more
> fairly, I'm totally game to do that, but otherwise I think that giving
> the credit to the first author is probably more fair on average.
Just give credit to all lines for all authors, would be my approach. Is
that unfair? Perhaps, but I'd rather err on the side of giving too much
credit, than on not giving enough.
> > How did you come up with the 'lines' number for each commit anyway?
> > Judging by 592a2283721 it's not just the number of lines added, since
> > that commit added 3 lines and you have lines=2.
>
> git log --before=${YEAR}-12-31 --after=${YEAR}-01-01 --shortstat -w -M
Ah, it's -w that makes the difference, got it.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)
