Hi Carlos, Are we sure its not a process the PTL may prefer? I find some folk don't like commits that cover more then one change, and instead prefer a single jira / commit to be used, even piecemeal for small changes.
To digress though, Open Source projects do have a lot of cases of people bending the rules to appear more prolific (stackalytics.com has had its fair share). This is where I wonder if we should not tout 'top contributors' as metric of merit. Luke On 30/08/16 13:40, Carlos Goncalves wrote: > Hi folks, > > > > I’m sorry for bringing this up to the list but it came to my attention > some time ago now of a continued practice carried by some > contributors/committers that I don’t think we as community would like to > continue supporting, not to say tolerant. I’m talking about commit > counts for the sake of whatever reasons you/your organization may have > behind. > > > > While I don’t want to go into details and list individual contributions, > one example is creating JIRA issues and commits per small change (e.g. > adding license headers to files) when it is more than obvious and > desired to everyone to have just a single JIRA and commit. Commit count > is not the way how you can show the project you’re involved in is more > or less active or meeting expected goals, and bumping up > yourself/organization in the top committer list is, well, you know…! > > > > Commit count can be an excellent metric to evaluate how an > individual/organization/project performs when done well. Trying to > work-around that, cheat if you will, should be pinpointed and resolved > -- in the open or not, I personally don’t care. > > > > </bash> > > > > Thanks, > > Carlos > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
