| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Matt Turner schrieb: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> The git transition had been 9 years in the making and has massively |
| 6 |
>> improved Gentoo development. Look at the graph of contributions per month: |
| 7 |
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/gentoo |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'd like to point out that some stuff that has previously been done in a |
| 10 |
> single commit is now several commits (e.g. bump + removal of old version). |
| 11 |
> How much of the rise in commit activity is attributable to actual |
| 12 |
> development increase is not clear to me. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
How were previous cvs commit stats generated? CVS has not concept of |
| 16 |
a commit across multiple files in its data model. You can of course |
| 17 |
look for commits to multiple files that share the same timestamp and |
| 18 |
author and infer that these are a single commit, but if you make two |
| 19 |
commits at the same time with the same name and description in cvs |
| 20 |
there is no way to distinguish that from one commit that hits both |
| 21 |
files. In git these would be captured differently. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For the historical migration to git commits were consolidated using a |
| 24 |
window. Otherwise you'd get a bazillion Manifest commits on top of |
| 25 |
everything else, to say nothing of simultaneous commits to |
| 26 |
filesdir/etc. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But, yours is a fair point all the same. In any case, git should be a |
| 29 |
lot more useful overall. Not to mention that while we might be |
| 30 |
arguing about which 3rd-party tools are the best for improving our |
| 31 |
workflow at least we have a choice now. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives