On 15/02/2011 1:45 AM, Joern Huxhorn wrote: [snip]
For git, the dvcs we use in logback, the following command computes the commit-points accumulated by Alice.
git log --format='%ad %an' --date=short|uniq|grep Alice|wc -l
At present time, the commit-points for the logback project:
Ceki Gulcu 486 commit-points Sebastien Pennec 164 commit-points Tomasz Nurkiewicz 10 commit-points
The main problem with this heuristic is that even if I did a complete rewrite of the whole Logback project over a timeframe of two years and you'd just love it and decided to take all of my changes you'd still apply (merge) my changes on a single day giving me exactly one commit-point. Does not seem to be very fair to me.
What you describe would be very unfair. Fortunately, merging with git preserves the author and date. If a merge objectively deserves N commit points, the author of the contribution will get exxactly N points after the merge.
I think this does only work for non-distibuted repositories with multiple commiters but not for DVCS with a single blessed repository.
Nope, git merges conserve the original author and date.
A committocracy may be less efficient than the BDFL model for decision making, and compared to the Apache-way, it grants less power to newcomers. However, a committocracy is a fair system in the sense that the same rules apply to all. Today's committer with the most committer-points can be different than that of tomorrow. Moreover, compared to the Apache-way, a committocracy drastically reduces the risk of a project going haywire after admitting a new member. As a corollary, a project can safely reduce the wait-and-see period preceding the admission of new committers. Thus, newcomers may be granted committership status immediately (after their first commit).
I'm not sure if I really understand you correctly...
Are you really suggesting to give up the blessed repository concept and add just about everyone as a Collaborator (as GitHub calls them)? I think the default GitHub way of working with pull-requests is a much better and safer way of work.
Commits can be reverted if proven to be unsuitable after review. Commitorctacy is designed to allow decision making in case a given commit is not unanimously approved.
Your comments welcome.
I hope so ;)
Sorry for ranting but I had to get all of this out of my system.
Sure. I understand that seeing one's contributions ignored/declined can be frustrating. I am sorry for ignoring/declining the contributions which deserved better.
Cheers, Joern.
-- Ceki