4 ms·

The story to take away from this is how much GitHub can add to a project's contributions. I'm sure Rails' popularity didn't hurt either. See http://www.youtube.

The story to take away from this is how much GitHub can add to a project's contributions. I'm sure Rails' popularity didn't hurt either. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ji8FDNTj0#t=5m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ji8FDNTj0#t=5m10s for the GH migration.

hammerdr 16y ago
No kidding. GitHub absolutely exploded the number of contributors to Rails (at least, judging by this visualization).
- kingkilr 16y ago
  My instinct is that it's just increasing the number of attributed commits. Before Github the committer was always whichever user actually committed it, here the committer is the author.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Why? Git logs both author and committer. When you apply patches from the fork queue, the author is the original author and you are the committer. So any stats that look at committer would be ... wrong, github or not.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - kingkilr 16y ago
      Right github would record the author as being the person. SVN has no conception of an author/committer distinction.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Oh right, Rails was originally SVN. I wiped the SVN era from my memories as a way of coping with the pain it caused me.
- axod 16y ago
  The question though is, is that necessarily always a good thing? Do more chefs mean better meals?