one thing I just realized about #github (not sure if this is true for other git platforms) is that, even if you are invited as a contributor to a project it doesn't list you as a contributor of the project
this is a problem as it assumes all contributors are developers. Some of us are artists, others are community managers, issue wranglers.. All of these people are active part of a project and contribute even if we are not the ones sending the pull request.
@eylul It's a Github thing, and I agree with your analysis.
In pure Git, there's no concept of "contributors", just a log of code commits.
Gitlab, Gitea, Gitolite, and others, may add a member listing, but it's about literal repo permissions, not about contribution or participation.
I'm inclined to think that community activity shouldn't be a part of Git data or metadata. There's so much activity that happens around a project that has nothing to do with code commits.
@eylul If you'll pardon an off-topic but still-Github-related complaint: I also hate Github's matrix of "activity."
It's misleading and wrong. Just because I don't push work to Github on a daily basis hardly means I haven't been working. That's the point of Git, in fact: I can work locally and only push changes when it's ready.
There's is a very capitalist-centric view of "productivity."
Best policy is to avoid Github for the open source alternatives!
@eylul YUP. I wrote about this a bit in https://harihareswara.net/posts/2022/contribution-metrics-are-messy-an-example/
@brainwane I think a lot of us have been discussing this larger issue of where the contribution starts and ends (talked about this issue from an art/design/volunteer influencer/educator point of view at a few conferences, and wasn't the only person there)
Your article is especially a great resource for a new project through in terms of helping a project trying to define and verbalize those questions.
@brainwane I think what frustrated me in this case was that, your work can be literally in the repo moved there by someone else who gets the file structure better - as it should be- (let alone on issues) and contribution doesn't count. Literally it has to be pull requests... only that. I don't even know if contributing to the project wiki counts. /o\
@eylul @brainwane The way my company handles this is through in-app contribution tiers for folks who make contributions that aren't counted in GitHub--but that's reliant on folks knowing about the existence of the tiers, on not self-rejecting, and so on and so forth (and how do you *judge* a contribution in a qualitative way?). I'm definitely going to share your article with my manager, Sumana. Thanks for writing it!
@eilatan I have been lucky to be contributing to projects where developers have been very encouraging and careful to credit. On Ubuntu Studio, we do have team members that are manually added, (and our team lead has been amazing to acknowledge non-code and auxiliary contributions) so it has never been an issue really.
Even here what prompted the original post was the fact that the developer was trying to acknowledge the contribution but clearly github knows better. xD
@brainwane @eylul I know I just had a big refactor go into production and bc my coworker worked on it after I did—they were trying to optimize it further and weren’t successful bc ~legacy code~ so we essentially went with what I did, but bc their branch got merged, they got credited by GH—they did credit me in the release notes.
Our dependabots usually have a list of ppl who did commits, but not co-commits or anything.
crediting contributions to floss projects
this was very interesting to read. ubuntu actually has a version of this where if you submit for membership you write all your contributions on your user wiki. (code and non-code) and recommendations get added in. nobody looks at the repos as far as I know.
but this is great in terms of generalizing the idea. I have mixed feelings about using linked in but that's a separate topic. xD
@eylul that is a problem I have noticed as well. Certainly not difficult to fix considering it can be setup through actions to list contributors automatically. Should be default behavior for all repos. Documentation work, art for images and everything else non coding should list just as important.
actually that it tries to list it automatically is part of the problem. Just because somebody else is doing the pull request and upload doesn't always mean the person doing the work.
single user server for an artist