From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-scm.com Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:10:32 -0700 Message-ID: <7vsktwfu5z.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v3alxr0fd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Scott Chacon" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 26 19:12:09 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KMnJ3-00082P-LU for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753161AbYGZRKl (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:10:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753099AbYGZRKl (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:10:41 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:59992 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbYGZRKl (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:10:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE8641544; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 700E941540; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:10:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Scott Chacon's message of "Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:59:58 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C4F7F074-5B35-11DD-B3BA-CE28B26B55AE-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Scott Chacon" writes: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> I find a tabular list like this list easier to read if it were sorted like >> this: >> >> A D G >> B E H >> C F >> ... > > I fixed the things you mentioned here, except for the list ordering, > only because I kinda think you big contributors should be at the top > there,... If you are going to list 30 or so top contributors in 8 rows times 4 columns, because visually the columns are much more distinct than the rows, it makes the result look more sorted. This is the same reasoning hwo "git help --all" was fixed with 112d0ba (Make "git help" sort git commands in columns, 2005-12-18). By the way, I think this shows another issue with the "rest of us" list in the lower half. I have a mild suspicion that sorting that list in alphabetical order may actually make it much better. It all depends on the purpose of that list, though. The purpose of the list would most likely not to find somebody with high activity to contact for help (you would use the top list that is sorted by the commit count for that kind of thing). It would primarily be to give credit to everybody, and perhaps so that people on the contributor list can point at their own name and say "I helped them", or find somebody else they happen to know in the list. When a contributor used to have 8 commits and then adds 2 commits, that would move the name in the list by a dozen places or so with the current set of contributors. It would be much easier to locate one's own name among a huge list if the names are alphabetically sorted, not by commit count. When more people start to contribute, your name does not move so drastically. If you are Adam, you are likely to find yourself near the beginning of the list, if you are Scott, you are likely to find yourself near one fourth from the end of the list. And for the "giving credit" purpose, I do not think truncating the list at 5 commits or less threshold, as suggested earlier and already done, makes much sense, either.