Penney, Don wrote:
To follow up on the discussion on the call this morning...
Here's one example of "Committer" being used rather than author. Jack Ding had helped with upstreaming a lot of our early commits. The biterg page shows him having 120 commits in config, but he's listed as the author of 6:
config$ git log --pretty=fuller |grep '^Commit:.*Jack Ding' | wc -l 118 config$ git log --pretty=fuller |grep '^Author:.*Jack Ding' | wc -l 6
There are actually *three* different things. - The overview page tracks the *Gerrit change owner*. As Jeremy says, this is what we use to check CLA/DCO for contributions, and what we use for electoral rolls as well. So it is our default way to count "contribution". - What you compare above is data from the *git repository commits*, not the Gerrit changes. Git commits have two concepts: Committer and Author. Bitergia allows to track both (and by default in their Data sources/git dashboard show Authors). This data (Git Committer and Author) is more unreliable data compared to Gerrit Owners as you potentially inherit work done outside you community (in case of upstream merges) and duplicate data (in case of repository forks). So in summary, you can totally track Git Authorship with the Bitergia tooling.... and I can add a panel on the Git data source page that will make that easier. But I would strongly recommend against using Git Authors and for using Gerrit Owners to count basic code contribution, as it is a much more reliable metric that happens to match how we use in license compliance and governance elections. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)