On Mon, 13 May 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2002 20:17, Danny Angus wrote: > > Sometimes lists are where the activity is, commits alone don't credit the > > essential design and planning effort put in by users commiters and > > non-commiters that shapes the product and maps its progress. > > Agreed - even worse. Sometimes after these activity meters turn up you get > committers breaking up one commit into many commits, presumably to push their > activity level up. You also get the many typographic changes for much the > same reason.
Breaking one big commit into many commits is not bad. It makes things easier to review, the commit comment can describe much better what has been done in the file. Putting a 'ranking' on commiter's activity is however very bad. Some are working full time ( as part of their job ), some are using the little free time they find ( or sleep less ). I think the second category deserves a lot of apreciation, even if they may have fewer commits. Costin > I have found that higher healthy activity is actually indicated by small > localized changes. This is not going to be captured in a simple count the > commits and note the committer style approach. > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
