[newmaint-site] contributors.d.o source for git.debian.org

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

Hey Martín, thanks *a lot* for this work. It is incredibly important to
properly list Git commits as contributions on contributors.d.o, and I've
constantly felt bad for not having found the time to work on this
myself. So thanks a bunch for relieving my pain :)

A few comments and possibly a bug report below,

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:08:57AM +0000, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> You can see the current results at
> https://contributors.debian.org/source/git.debian.org

I wonder if other repositories, in addition to those explicitly
mentioned below, are excluded from data collection by your new source,
or if there's maybe a bug here.

Case in point: the Git repo we use for Debsources,
i.e. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/qa/debsources.git . Based on the
following observations, it doesn't seem to be considered:

- my most recent Git contribution seems to date back to October 2014
  https://contributors.debian.org/contributor/zack%40debian whereas I
  regularly commit to the above repo

- neither Matthieu Caneill (matthieuc-guest on alioth) nor my OPW intern
  Jingjie Jiang (sophiejjj-guest) seems to be listed at
  https://contributors.debian.org/source/git.debian.org

So, am I right in assuming that your data source only consider package
repositories on git.d.o? That is consistent with name "pkg-commit" which
I see at the above URL, but it wasn't clear to me from your email.

If so, why is that the case? Have you thought about generalizing it to
*all* git.d.o repositories? My take is that everyone who has committed
anything to one such repo is contributing something to Debian, and as
such deserves to see her work acknowledged publicly. YMMV.

> * Processing 15k repositories takes a few hours, so I tried to trim this
> down. About 6k repositories are inside pkg-perl and collab-maint, so I
> have excluded them from processing. I have also excluded user
> directories (*/users/*.git), and other projects already tracked
> separately (nm, DSA, debbits). There are still about 9k repositories. As
> we add more specialised sources, we can exclude more from this thing.

QA repos are not listed here, but does not seem to be currently
considered by your data source either. Do you think they should be
tracked separately?

Personally, I think it would be much better to have a single git.d.o
data source, so that we can deploy/update it once, without having
several instances of it to separately maintain.

> There are a few groups with over 100 repos that I would like to treat
> separately, to make this lighter, and because they clearly deserve their
> own source. Any takers?

FWIW, -qa stuff wasn't listed here either.

Thanks again for your amazing work on this!
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack at upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/newmaint-site/attachments/20150109/ef5e963b/attachment.sig>