I really wanted to like this. The author presents a well-thought-out rationale for what conclusions to draw, but I'm skeptical. Commit counts aren't a great sig

I really wanted to like this. The author presents a well-thought-out rationale for what conclusions to draw, but I'm skeptical. Commit counts aren't a great signal: yes, the person with the highest night be the person who built it or knows the most about it, but that could also be the person who is sloppy with commits (when they don't squash), or someone who makes a lot of mistakes and has to go back and fix them. The grep for bugs is not particularly comprehensive: it will pick up some things that aren't bugs, and will miss a bunch of things too. The "project accelerating or dying" seems odd to me. By definition, the bulk of commits/changes will be at the very beginning of history. And regardless, "stability" doesn't mean "dying".