Chris Cormack a écrit :
Theres a lot more than that. The whole C4::Context module was done by arensberger. arensb 163 commits
Right, I just counted the 10 first. In fact, I think we should/could separate 2 things : - historical of Koha - snapshot of Koha Let me explain : Oloho displays 8 years of commits. We can see that we have a large amount of contributors. http://git.koha.org/gitstat/chart.php can display recent monthly code submission. The differences are interesting I think. For the last 6 months, we have the following domains : LibLime, BibLibre, myacpl, tamil, gmail, washk12, hclibrary, bigballofwax, ens-lyon, phonecoop That's 10 differents organisations (note i've ignored metavore, as it's LibLime. gmail I think it's Kyle, although not sure) on the other side : if you count the number of commits, you'll get : LibLime : 270 BibLibre : 79 myacpl : 74 washk12 : 24 bigballofwax : 12 All others cumulated : 19 total : 478 commits percentages : LibLime 56%, BibLibre 17%, myacpl : 16%, washk : 5%, bigballofwax : 2.5%, others : 4% So the question : is Koha "rich of a large number of commiters (10 differents organisations in the last 6 months)", or "heavily depending on 3 major contributors (LibLime, BibLibre, myacpl)" ? Note : those numbers don't display the RMaint role hdl is endorsing for 3.0.x He has validated a lot of patches (250) for 3.0.x, but they are not counted here (95% of the patches applied on main and 3.0.x, that would be a duplicate) another interesting stats, that I haven't, could be the number of lines of a given version written by each contributor. Something like "there are 100 000 lines of code in koha 3.0 as of dec 2008. X coming from LibLime, Y coming from BibLibre, Z coming from Katipo, ..." I'm sure the results would be much differents (with my/BibLibre contributions being more important, and katipo one much more). In my feeling, that would be something like 25% for each me/LibLime/katipo, and 25% for all others. but that's just a feeling, and I would be very pleased to have numbers ! note that those numbers would be false anyway, as someone commiting just a reindented script could be counted as author, which is obviously wrong ! I think the % is impossible to have. We just can count the number of commits (oloho), and the "snapshot" at a given date (git.koha.org) As a conclusion : none of us should forget the other number : Is LibLime proud to be the main commiter this year ? It's fair, but they must not forget that they have got a 6-7years old code when they started to commit heavily. Katipo or me is proud to be the author of version 1 / 2 ? It's fair, but we must not forget that those days the vitality of Koha is not coming mainly from us. Those are 2 steps of the same piece, and it would not be what it is without the 2 ! Developpers & libraries can be thanked as well : Katipo would not have written koha 1.0 without HLT, I would not have been involved in Koha without my catholic community (that asked me to find a free software for their library), and LibLime wouldn't have existed if NPL had not choosen it in 2004 (joshua used to work at NPL) /me endorse the role of the wise man ;-) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08