3 ms·
I'll offer you a 10$ to 5$ bet: Take 10 migrated github repos at random (1) If they did not increase(2) the number of serious(3) contributors, I lose 10$. If t
by josinalvo 12y ago
I'll offer you a 10$ to 5$ bet:
Take 10 migrated github repos at random (1) If they did not increase(2) the number of serious(3) contributors, I lose 10$. If they did, you lose 5$.
(1) random sampling: take a repo by using the last digits of a public number (like, say, the nasdaq index). Eliminate repo if "too small" or "not migrated", until you have 10
(2) compare 1 year before github to 1 year after. This gives you three numbers: at start of first year(A), at start of migration(B), at end of migration(C). N1=B/A, N2=C/B. If avg(N1) not > avg(N2), you win
(3) serious means 20 contribs in the year
(further terms will be settled upon if you want to bet, before you accept)
---
(btw, I think it might not mean much to VIM that it moved =P)
- sfk 12y agoYou misunderstand completely. Of course small random projects like flappy-bird-in-cobol may benefit from a migration. I'm talking about well established projects. Also, the metrics you propose are quite meaningless. There are contributions that actually waste core developer's time but are grudgingly accepted either for political reasons or to shut up the proponent. These kinds of contributions are certain to increase by a migration to GitHub.
- josinalvo 12y agoOk. How would you quantify "meaningfull contributions" ?