[bug#38846] [PATCH 0/4] Move 'HACKING' to the manual, and a proposal for commit access

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi Ludo,

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 23:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> >>From the v1.0.1 to now, the repartition of committers which are not the authors:
> >
> >    361
> >      78
> >      65
> >      61
> >      59
> >      54
> >      52
> >      47
> >      44
> >      43
> >      37
> >      21  (x2)
> >      11
> >       9
> >       8
> >       7  (x2)
> >       6
> >       5  (x3)
> >       4  (x2)
> >       3
> >       2  (x3)
> >       1  (x3)
> >
> > which should be compared to the number of commits per author also
> > committer (first 10):
> >
> >    1463
> >    1162
> >     886
> >     670
> >     618
> >     335
> >     204
> >     166
> >     161
> >     150
>
> I had overlooked that; interesting, though I’m not sure what conclusion(s)
> to draw.  Perhaps we should look at how these numbers evolve over time?

If one re-associates the number of commits as committers to the number
of commits as authors, and computes the ratio (in percent and sorted),
the result is:

248.00
128.26
105.00
100.00
100.00
67.16
53.61
45.49
42.86
41.60
40.00
28.28
28.13
23.12
23.08
19.40
14.45
10.23
8.57
7.00
6.60
6.25
5.88
5.75
5.75
5.19
3.21
2.63
1.84
1.47
1.31
.73

To be clear, the person with the score of 53.61% "reviews" half as
many commits they authors.

And the mean is almost 37%. Cool, no?


Well, it is not possible to draw an strong conclusion, just a weak
one: Guix is healthy. ;-)

(For example, the number of commits should be weighted with the number
of lines changed.)


And yes, it should be interesting to see how evolves the commits rate
(as authors, as committers) over the time.


> Related to that, attached is a script I wrote a while back to view the
> number of reviews per committer (ah ha!), like so:

Cool!

Maybe this kind of metrics could be reported to the Guix Data Service.
Well, let start by play with your script. ;-)


> This is for all-time commits, so not all that representative, but could
> be used as a starting point for the statistician in you.  :-)

Héhé! You got me. ;-)


Cheers,
simon