Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Authorship Tests #4

Open
5 tasks
frobnitzem opened this issue May 18, 2020 · 4 comments
Open
5 tasks

Authorship Tests #4

frobnitzem opened this issue May 18, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@frobnitzem
Copy link
Member

frobnitzem commented May 18, 2020

Run a series of tests on authorship lists. Create a repository and scan it with several API calls to determine the full extent of identification we can get on authors.

  • Create a test repository with each of the following kinds of activity:
    * a commit from the main author (set name and email to something unique inside command-line git-config)
    * an accepted PR from @rmmilewi
    * a rejected PR from a third party
    * an issue reporting a bug from @elaineraybourn
    * an accepted PR from @frobnitzem that contains a squashed commit log with contributions from a third author
    - note: author and committer is distinguished
    * a merge-commit by the main author with a third-party's changes
  • get_contributors
  • get_stats_contributors
  • get_collaborators
  • write a short document explaining the test setup and results from each API call.

Earlier, not actionable ideas:

  • confluence activity logs?
  • should also check mailing lists (e.g. slate / scalapack) and project twitter / facebook pages
@frobnitzem
Copy link
Member Author

Additional Authors:

  • We need to check whether we can find folks who setup the CI pipelines and commit policies.

@elaineraybourn
Copy link
Member

Regarding authorship, I believe we demonstrated today that corroborating/cross-checking with publicly available social media posts and project artifacts can be very helpful in providing contextual information about projects. I like the comment about including automation into the scope of contribution.

@elaineraybourn
Copy link
Member

I know we have been using the term "author" here, but we use "contributor" in our documentation. Let's choose one. We may also consider the following as we progress:

  • The impact of ECP funding on growth of the repos -- is funding guiding the science and development, or are the repos developers leveraging funding to continue on paths determined by other factors?
  • Different definitions of community to analyze data--Is there co-evolution among dependencies (people and software)?

@frobnitzem
Copy link
Member Author

A helpful, extensive, background reference on git features is present here:
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants