Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Contribution Report, October 2015 #3728

Closed
mikeal opened this issue Nov 10, 2015 · 32 comments
Closed

Contribution Report, October 2015 #3728

mikeal opened this issue Nov 10, 2015 · 32 comments
Labels
meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

Comments

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

I wrote some code that can output reports on repo activity. This report is from October 1st to now, it shows how many contributors we've had, which are new since the beginning of October, and if they are collaborators. This should help us identify new people to onboard sooner.

Top Level Stats

  • 239 total commits.
  • 77 total contributors.
  • 46 contributors had never contributors prior. ~59%

Contributors since 2015-10-01T00:00:00Z

Reviewers

Merge masters
@indutny
Copy link
Member

indutny commented Nov 10, 2015

Do we get any rewards? Maybe a badge, or a sticker?

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@indutny you get a high-five :)

@bahamas10
Copy link
Contributor

I have made 1 commits.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

But you have to high five yourself.
On Nov 9, 2015 5:48 PM, "Mikeal Rogers" [email protected] wrote:

@indutny https://github.com/indutny you get a high-five :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3728 (comment).

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015 via email

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Nov 10, 2015

How is the reviewers section calculated? If it's from the PR metadata, I don't think it's correct.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

Where does "merge masters" come from?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

I kinda like it. Master's of the Merge!

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@cjihrig it's pulled from the "Reviewed-By" commit message lines.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@thealphanerd "Merge Masters" are people who merged code that they did not author :)

@indutny
Copy link
Member

indutny commented Nov 10, 2015

@mikeal I haven't merged anything, AFAIK

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Nov 10, 2015

it's pulled from the "Reviewed-By" commit message lines.

It's definitely not correct then. I'm not listed as a reviewer, but here is one from a few days ago. 33827e3

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

@cjihrig @mikeal ... depending on how those Reviewed-By commit messages are pulled, they may not catch all of them. @rvagg's pr-metadata tool misses quite a few legitimate LGTM's and some get missed here and there when the commit is being landed (particularly PRs will long threads). I have a todo item on my list to take a pass on improving the detection.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

There's a small issue with the way we are calculating "new contributor." I'm using the statistics API to pull the weekly data but it appears to not be complete. It works most of the time but for people who have very sparse activity they aren't showing up.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

^ updated all the stats, we were excluding cases where we didn't have a consistent email/name combination.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

Hmm... [email protected]> did 1 reviews ... looks like we need some commit message linting :-/

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@jasnell fixed :)

@srl295
Copy link
Member

srl295 commented Nov 10, 2015

^ similarly,[email protected] === @srl295 …

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

@mikeal ... this only covers commits to master, correct? Later on, as an optional todo, we should include any non-overlapping commits to the stable and LTS branches -- only the non-overlapping ones so we don't end up with duplication caused by cherrypicks.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@srl295 that's because your github metadata is "[email protected]" and since all your commits are signed that way we don't have the info to map this other email address to that commit.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@jasnell we could pretty easily, but wouldn't it be better to post to the LTS WG these stats about specific branches rather than just adding data to this?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Nov 10, 2015

Yeah, that works too. Any plans on having your code generate these stats automatically for the website? ;-)

@mscdex mscdex added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Nov 10, 2015
@srl295
Copy link
Member

srl295 commented Nov 10, 2015

@mikeal hm - https://github.com/srl295 shows the other address (is that what it's using?)

also is gmai.com a typo?

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@jasnell it's pretty intense to run the numbers across every repo, especially if I fix the "new contributor" logic to pull the actual commit history, so probably not. It's certainly something I can automate on a month basis though.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@srl295 yup, but locally you sign your commits with the other email address, so in the commit metadata that's the only reference we have. There isn't a good way to ask github if an email address has a login associated, you can only ask what email address is associated with a specific login.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@srl295 gmai.com is a typo someone wrote in one of the review-by comments.

@srl295
Copy link
Member

srl295 commented Nov 10, 2015

@mikeal got it. sorry for making a mess.. trying to keep things consistent from here

@tanepiper
Copy link

💃 for all!

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

@mikeal couldn't you just refer to the .mailmap for different emails?

If they aren't there already they should be.

@john-yan
Copy link

[email protected] == @john-yan :)

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 10, 2015

@Fishrock123 the .mailmap is nowhere near a full representation, there's more data just looking at the login associated with each email in a month of commits :/

@mikeal mikeal mentioned this issue Nov 11, 2015
Closed
@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikeal commented Nov 11, 2015

Closing this. We now have an issue opened for new committers based on this #3761

@mikeal mikeal closed this as completed Nov 11, 2015
@dougwilson dougwilson mentioned this issue Mar 1, 2016
Closed
This was referenced Mar 29, 2020
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests