On Monday 20 April 2009, Nathaniel Catchpole wrote:
The only way that code contributions to core get measured is when Greg Knaddison parses commit logs and puts everything into a spreadsheet once or twice a year - our commit model also completely breaks sites like ohloh.
It's not the commit model that breaks Ohloh but the fact that we're using a distributed version control workflow with a centralized one (CVS) as tool. That's a mismatch, because most projects using centralized VCSs don't work that way. In fact, iirc then Linus Torvalds dropped CVS in favor of Bitkeeper (later Git) because the former did not work with his development model. Now they're working as a bunch of subsystem teams with each subsystem maintainer keeping track of his version of the Linux kernel, while the final word is still spoken by Linus who has a lot of say in terms of direction and the "large picture" (or should I say "macro-problems"). Sound familiar? Of course, even current DVCSs treat reviewed-by and approved-by as part of the textual message instead of core concept. As long as it's standardized though, Ohloh should be able to deal with it :)