On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 18:15 Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 6 March 2016 at 06:52, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 10:58 Georg Brandl firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Anyway, with the migration to Git it becomes much easier to spot and remind us of potential committers, as both author and committer info are retained in commits. This makes a periodic report (by a bot, presumably) possible that lists those authors with the most commits, but without commit bit.
That's a great idea! Recorded in PEP 512: https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/fad7b646ab06.
Bonus points if the bot can figure out how many iterations the patch went through prior to being merged - when I've recommended folks for commit bits in the past, it's generally been because I've got to a point where I feel like I'm just rubberstamping their patches (rather than needing to suggest changes), so I can be confident they've worked out for themselves what "good" looks like.
It's called a "synchronize" action for the pull request, so yes, it can be tracked. :)
(Such a bot would be useful even without that though, as the folks actually reviewing and merging the commits would still be the ones to propose new contributors for merge privileges)
-- Nick Coghlan | email@example.com | Brisbane, Australia