git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Sverre Rabbelier" <srabbelier@gmail.com>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Jakub Narebski" <jnareb@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Use cases for 'git statistics'
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 03:01:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd6139dc0805171801q1c07f902p1882f65a77345d71@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vlk29er1w.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

[And once more with 'reply to all' instead. Wouldn't it be nice if
gmail had an 'auto-reply-to-all' feature...]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> A cursory browsing is enough only when you trust the contributor well.
> For example, I read patches from Nico to code around the pack generation
> only once or at most twice before I apply them, and the same thing can be
> said about git-svn patches from or acked-by Eric.  These come mostly from
> the fact that (1) I know they know the area a lot better than myself do,
> and more importantly that (2) I know they care deeply about the subsystem
> they are modifying, and they have good taste.

This makes sense, patches only get a 'cursory browsing' when they come
from a trusted author, which is defined mostly by how active and how
'good' they are in the area they modify.

> Project maintainers and old timers become familiar with habits, strengths
> and weaknesses of known contributors over time, and that is the source of
> such trust.

This could only partially be done by an algorithm, while git excels in
the 'over time' part, the definition of 'habits, strengths and
weaknesses' is harder to make.

> A clever enough automated way may be able to identify links between the
> contributors and the areas they are familiar with, and using such a
> mechanism people might be able to decide that a patch falls into category
> (1) above.  I am not sure if any automated way could ever decide if a
> patch falls into category (2) above, though.

Yes, your solution in determining patches from (1) is in the same
direction of what I have been thinking on myself. I don't think it is
possible to determine (2) without having access to the review system
(in git's case, the mailing list). When the review system would become
part of the analysis it could provide information on what improvements
had to be made to a commit before it was accepted. If 'style
improvements' would be marked in such a system then people with 'good
taste' are people whose commits do not often need 'style
improvements'. Alas, implementing something like that would be beyond
the scope of 1 GSoC. Ah well, 't is a nice dream about to implement at
a later time perhaps. (Although such would be more suited in a team
collaboration suite than in a [D]VCS).


--
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-18  1:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-08 15:51 [RFC] Use cases for 'git statistics' Sverre Rabbelier
2008-05-12  9:38 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-05-12 10:16   ` Jakub Narebski
2008-05-12 10:19     ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-05-12 11:19       ` Jakub Narebski
2008-05-12 11:49         ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-05-12 12:40           ` Jakub Narebski
2008-05-12 13:01             ` Sverre Rabbelier
     [not found]             ` <bd6139dc0805120604m349b1fbbr39c6dcb8d893e771@mail.gmail.com>
2008-05-13 13:07               ` Jakub Narebski
2008-05-13 13:37                 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-05-14 20:34                   ` Jakub Narebski
2008-05-15 12:21                     ` Andreas Ericsson
2008-05-17  0:02                   ` Junio C Hamano
2008-05-18  1:01                     ` Sverre Rabbelier [this message]
2008-05-21 17:30                     ` Junio C Hamano
2008-05-21 20:52                       ` Sverre Rabbelier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bd6139dc0805171801q1c07f902p1882f65a77345d71@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=srabbelier@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).