Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2013, #07; Thu, 20)

[Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Unfortunately, I tend to become bottleneck more often than you do,
> so I do not think that would be a good use of my time.

Besides, as Antoine points out, those numbers might well be useless
(or worse, misleading).  It's probably not worth the effort.

> Which ones went unreviewed that are of high value?

My observation can be boiled down to: I usually never get the
opportunity to say something useful on most patches, because someone
else already has; that has not been the case offlate.  Probably some
bias: I tried looking for examples and counter-examples, but the list
is too large for individual patches to make any sense.

I did run a script on git.git to see if there are any recent trends:
if I'm right about patches not being reviewed, it must ultimately show
up somewhere, right?

v1.7.0..v1.7.1:: 702
 jc (68), jn (50), jh (32), tr (22), jk (19), tr (19), mj (18), sb
(15), bc (11), jl (10)
v1.7.1..v1.7.2:: 772
 jc (57), jn (56), Æa (32), mj (26), jk (21), tr (20), bc (19), gv
(18), jn (18), cc (17)
v1.7.2..v1.7.3:: 624
 jn (117), Æa (64), jc (28), mm (23), nt (23), en (18), bc (17), tr
(17), js (15), jl (12)
v1.7.3..v1.7.4:: 1025
 jn (89), nt (68), jc (59), en (54), jk (27), mj (26), Æa (25), ef
(23), jh (23), ra (20)
v1.7.4..v1.7.5:: 734
 jn (90), Æa (79), jc (64), mj (40), jk (38), nt (31), bw (16), hv
(13), pw (12), jl (10)
v1.7.5..v1.7.6:: 650
 jc (112), jk (51), mv (35), jn (28), jn (20), mj (16), jh (15), Æa
(12), mk (11), jm (9)
v1.7.6..v1.7.7:: 779
 jc (105), jk (60), en (55), Æa (48), mh (44), js (19), di (16), jn
(16), sr (15), tr (15)
v1.7.7..v1.7.8:: 644
 jc (85), mh (37), jk (31), rs (26), rr (23), jn (18), nt (15), bc
(13), mj (10), ra (9)
v1.7.8..v1.7.9:: 565
 jc (82), jk (62), nt (24), mh (23), pw (18), jn (16), tr (15), bw
(14), mv (11), pt (11)
v1.7.9..v1.7.10:: 683
 jc (84), jk (40), jn (27), nt (25), tr (21), jn (18), jx (15), zj
(15), mh (13), th (11)
v1.7.10..v1.7.11:: 925
 jc (92), ap (73), jk (69), nt (39), rs (38), mh (37), jn (25), jx
(19), rt (17), zj (17)
v1.7.11..v1.7.12:: 548
 jc (107), jk (51), mm (29), jx (15), mg (14), nt (14), pw (13), jn
(12), as (7), cw (7)
v1.8.0..v1.8.1:: 525
 jc (55), jk (41), fc (32), nt (19), fa (15), mh (12), km (11), ta
(11), mo (10), rr (9)
v1.8.1..v1.8.2:: 957
 jc (107), nt (53), jk (39), pw (35), jk (33), as (31), mh (31), fc
(26), mv (23), wt (17)
v1.8.2..v1.8.3:: 1005
 fc (112), jc (95), jk (89), nt (35), jk (29), da (26), rr (24), tr
(18), bc (15), jn (15)
v1.8.3..master:: 497
 fc (112), mh (60), rr (24), jc (23), rs (21), tr (18), kb (15), js
(13), ra (12), nt (11)

Meh, it looks normal.  Sorry for the noise: I don't think there's any
cause for worry.