From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2018-08-13 20:36:47
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us
can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?
There's also overlap with the remote A/V concerns there. I.e. an
acceptable compromise for those companies might be to talk about
those features freely in the contributor summit trusting that it's a
closed forum, but that wouldn't work if it's going to be broadcasted.
1. git.git$ git log --pretty=format:%aN --since=2018-01-01|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
You'd need --no-merges there at least.
Oh, using "git shortlog" might be also simpler ;-)
From: Stefan Beller <hidden> Date: 2018-08-13 20:42:05
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us
can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?
There's also overlap with the remote A/V concerns there. I.e. an
acceptable compromise for those companies might be to talk about
those features freely in the contributor summit trusting that it's a
closed forum, but that wouldn't work if it's going to be broadcasted.
1. git.git$ git log --pretty=format:%aN --since=2018-01-01|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
You'd need --no-merges there at least.
No, I would disagree, as that removes you from top of the list,
and you seem to be a pretty central part of the community to say at least.
Ævar specifically pointed out that we might want to hear from you and Duy
if you want to attend a conference and if so how we can make that happen
(by choosing location/time/setting appropriately) IIUC.
Oh, using "git shortlog" might be also simpler ;-)
I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that
as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.
Stefan
From: Jeff King <hidden> Date: 2018-08-13 21:06:21
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
quoted
Oh, using "git shortlog" might be also simpler ;-)
I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that
as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.
I frequently using "git shortlog -ns" to see who is active (especially
coupled with "--since=".
I also use "--no-merges", because it makes me look a lot better when
compared relatively to Junio. :) I agree with you that "--no-merges"
means we don't capture all the work that goes into integrating. But
there's a lot of work that isn't reflected in commit count (reviewing,
bug triage, the fact that some commits are much bigger than others,
etc). So at best it's a starting point for figuring out who
participates.
-Peff
From: Stefan Beller <hidden> Date: 2018-08-13 21:19:21
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:06 PM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
quoted
quoted
Oh, using "git shortlog" might be also simpler ;-)
I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that
as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.
I frequently using "git shortlog -ns" to see who is active (especially
coupled with "--since=".
I also use "--no-merges", because it makes me look a lot better when
compared relatively to Junio. :) I agree with you that "--no-merges"
means we don't capture all the work that goes into integrating. But
there's a lot of work that isn't reflected in commit count (reviewing,
bug triage, the fact that some commits are much bigger than others,
etc). So at best it's a starting point for figuring out who
participates.
Heh. I tried finding that out, by looking at the public inbox repository
that contains the mailing list. (Recently I was looking at that repo to
learn about our workflow for different reasons, too)
However the mailing list participation numbers there doesn't really
help me:
~/git-ml$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne
3721 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
2166 Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
2071 Jeff King [off-list ref]
and I certainly do not provide as much value as Junio or you do;
I am just good at resending long patch series to drive up the email
count. But I think that data would be also interesting to look at if
we were to find out what drives the community.
Maybe some derived metrics posts on mailing list divided by
commits appearing in origin/next can guide if one is a effective
contributor; but then as you said there are other ways to contribute
effectively as well.
Reviewing and bug triage do show up in the mailing
list but not as commits in git.git, but the numbers alone would
not hint at the quality. In fact the opposite is the case: if you only
need one email to diagnose a bug, suggest a workaround and
include a proper patch, it is more helpful to the community than
having more emails, potentially going back and forth.
From: Jeff King <hidden> Date: 2018-08-13 21:54:36
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:19:07PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
However the mailing list participation numbers there doesn't really
help me:
~/git-ml$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne
3721 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
2166 Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
2071 Jeff King [off-list ref]
and I certainly do not provide as much value as Junio or you do;
I am just good at resending long patch series to drive up the email
count. But I think that data would be also interesting to look at if
we were to find out what drives the community.
Maybe some derived metrics posts on mailing list divided by
commits appearing in origin/next can guide if one is a effective
contributor; but then as you said there are other ways to contribute
effectively as well.
You could probably just drop any emails that start with "[PATCH" from
your count. They are ultimately counted separately in "git shortlog" on
the actual repo. And if you are sending tons of re-rolls you just do not
get any credit. ;)
The rabbit hole is deep there, though. Is it productive to have bugs in
your patch which force somebody else to reply (they get a point, good),
and then you have to respond explaining what's going on (you get a
point, bad, since you're now ahead of a hypothetical you who didn't have
the bug in the first place).
So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a
rough view on who is active.
Reviewing and bug triage do show up in the mailing
list but not as commits in git.git, but the numbers alone would
not hint at the quality. In fact the opposite is the case: if you only
need one email to diagnose a bug, suggest a workaround and
include a proper patch, it is more helpful to the community than
having more emails, potentially going back and forth.
Yep, another good example. More emails may mean you are incompetent at
diagnosing, or it may mean you are digging on a particularly hard
problem.
-Peff
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:06 PM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
quoted
quoted
Oh, using "git shortlog" might be also simpler ;-)
I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that
as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.
I frequently using "git shortlog -ns" to see who is active (especially
coupled with "--since=".
I also use "--no-merges", because it makes me look a lot better when
compared relatively to Junio. :)
--no-merges makes me number one. Not sure if I should laugh or cry :D
Going off topic a bit, can we count the number of topics of each
contributor? I could do it by decorating git log with remote refs from
Junio's repo and counting based on the two-letter prefix in the
topic/ref name but that's too hacky. fyi Jeff you're up to second
position now with 34 topics (I'm unfortunately still the first with
38).
--
Duy
From: Jeff King <hidden> Date: 2018-08-14 14:47:15
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:30:09PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
quoted
I frequently using "git shortlog -ns" to see who is active (especially
coupled with "--since=".
I also use "--no-merges", because it makes me look a lot better when
compared relatively to Junio. :)
--no-merges makes me number one. Not sure if I should laugh or cry :D
Since when? Junio still has everyone beat for all time, though of course
he cheats with easy ones like "update version field to v2.17.1". :)
I also sometimes look at "shortlog -ns --no-merges v2.17.0..v2.18.0" and
so on (i.e., each major release). I had a good run from about v2.10 to
v2.15, but I've been slipping since then.
Going off topic a bit, can we count the number of topics of each
contributor? I could do it by decorating git log with remote refs from
Junio's repo and counting based on the two-letter prefix in the
topic/ref name but that's too hacky. fyi Jeff you're up to second
position now with 34 topics (I'm unfortunately still the first with
38).
One problem there is that the prefixes are ambiguous (e.g., Jacob Keller
shares with me, and I think at least one other over the years). You
could look at the author of the tip commit, but that's not always right
(and in fact, counting just merged topics misses bug-fixes that get
applied directly on top of other people's topics). And of course there's
the notion that "topic" might be a documentation typo fix, or it might
be the entire range-diff program.
I think "surviving lines" is another interesting metric, though it also
has flaws (if I s/sha1/oid/ on your line, it becomes my line; even
though my change is useful and should be counted, it's probably not as
important as whatever the code was doing in the first place).
-Peff
From: Stefan Beller <hidden> Date: 2018-08-14 16:58:03
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:47 AM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
One problem there is that the prefixes are ambiguous (e.g., Jacob Keller
shares with me, and I think at least one other over the years). You
could look at the author of the tip commit, but that's not always right
(and in fact, counting just merged topics misses bug-fixes that get
applied directly on top of other people's topics). And of course there's
the notion that "topic" might be a documentation typo fix, or it might
be the entire range-diff program.
One could take all topics and see if you have at least one commit in there.
But that would mostly measure how much of an allrounder you are in the
code base (e.g. bug or style fixes such as Ramsay's "please squash this"
would be in many topics if not squashed).
There are other players who are very deep into one area of the code,
and probably have fewer series.
I think "surviving lines" is another interesting metric, though it also
has flaws (if I s/sha1/oid/ on your line, it becomes my line; even
though my change is useful and should be counted, it's probably not as
important as whatever the code was doing in the first place).
I wonder if we could measure the entropy added to the code base instead.
A patch that does s/sha1/oid/ (or introduction of a repository argument)
might compress very well, whereas new code might not compress very
well. ;-)
So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a
rough view on who is active.
I've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the
knowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say "this
metric is how we measure the quality of a contributor". It can be
helpful, though, to track some metrics and their change over time.
Here are a few measurements we can make:
1. Number of (non-merge) commit author tag-lines.
using git repo:
> git shortlog --no-merges --since 2017 -sne junio/next | head -n 20
284 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref]
257 Jeff King [off-list ref]
206 Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
192 brian m. carlson [off-list ref]
159 Brandon Williams [off-list ref]
149 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
137 Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
116 René Scharfe [off-list ref]
112 Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
105 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref]
96 Jonathan Tan [off-list ref]
93 SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref]
78 Derrick Stolee [off-list ref]
76 Martin Ågren [off-list ref]
66 Michael Haggerty [off-list ref]
61 Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
46 Christian Couder [off-list ref]
36 Phillip Wood [off-list ref]
35 Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
33 Thomas Gummerer [off-list ref]
2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By,
Reported-By, etc.).
Using git repo:
$ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v
Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
66 Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
22 Reviewed-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
19 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan [off-list ref]
12 Helped-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
11 Helped-by: Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
9 Helped-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
8 Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
7 Reported-by: Ramsay Jones [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Brandon Williams [off-list ref]
6 Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
6 Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
5 Mentored-by: Christian Couder [off-list ref]
5 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: René Scharfe [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider [off-list ref]
(There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful
metric.)
3. Number of email messages sent.
Using mailing list repo:
$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne | head -n 20
3749 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
2213 Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
2112 Jeff King [off-list ref]
1106 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref]
1028 Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
965 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref]
956 Brandon Williams [off-list ref]
947 Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
890 Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
753 brian m. carlson [off-list ref]
677 Duy Nguyen [off-list ref]
646 Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
629 Derrick Stolee [off-list ref]
545 Christian Couder [off-list ref]
515 Jonathan Tan [off-list ref]
425 Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
425 Martin Ågren [off-list ref]
420 Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref]
420 SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref]
363 Phillip Wood [off-list ref]
3. Number of threads started by user.
(For this and the measurements below, I imported emails into a SQL
table with columns [commit, author, date, message-id, in-reply-to,
subject] and ran queries)
SELECT TOP 20
COUNT(*) as NumSent
,[Author]
FROM [git].[dbo].[mailing-list]
WHERE [In-Reply-To] = ''
AND CONVERT(DATETIME,[Date]) > CONVERT(DATETIME, '01-01-2018
00:00')
GROUP BY [Author]
ORDER BY NumSent DESC
| NumSent | Author |
|---------|----------------------------|
| 76 | Junio C Hamano |
| 64 | Stefan Beller |
| 54 | Philip Oakley |
| 50 | Nguyá»…n Thái Ngá»c Duy |
| 49 | Robert P. J. Day |
| 47 | Christian Couder |
| 36 | Ramsay Jones |
| 34 | Elijah Newren |
| 34 | SZEDER Gábor |
| 33 | Johannes Schindelin |
| 31 | Jeff King |
| 30 | Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason |
| 24 | Jonathan Tan |
| 22 | Alban Gruin |
| 22 | brian m. carlson |
| 18 | Randall S. Becker |
| 15 | Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu |
| 15 | Jeff Hostetler |
| 15 | Brandon Williams |
| 15 | Luke Diamand |
4. Number of threads where the user participated
(This is measured by completing the transitive closure of In-Reply-To
edges into a new 'BaseMessage' column.)
SELECT TOP 20
COUNT(BaseMessage) as NumResponded
,Author
FROM [git].[dbo].[mailing-list]
WHERE [In-Reply-To] <> ''
AND CONVERT(DATETIME,[Date]) > CONVERT(DATETIME, '01-01-2018
00:00')
GROUP BY Author
ORDER BY NumResponded DESC
| NumResponded | Author |
|--------------|----------------------------|
| 2084 | Junio C Hamano |
| 1596 | Stefan Beller |
| 1211 | Jeff King |
| 1120 | Johannes Schindelin |
| 1021 | Nguyá»…n Thái Ngá»c Duy |
| 799 | Eric Sunshine |
| 797 | Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason |
| 693 | Brandon Williams |
| 654 | Duy Nguyen |
| 600 | Elijah Newren |
| 593 | brian m. carlson |
| 591 | Derrick Stolee |
| 318 | SZEDER Gábor |
| 299 | Jonathan Tan |
| 286 | Christian Couder |
| 263 | Jonathan Nieder |
| 257 | Phillip Wood |
| 256 | Derrick Stolee |
| 238 | Taylor Blau |
| 216 | Martin Ã…gren |
(Note, some names have not been de-duplicated across multiple email
addresses, but the email addresses are removed from these tables since
I'm using a markdown generator that strips the emails in < >.)
If you have other ideas for fun measurements, then please let me know.
Thanks,
-Stolee
From: Jeff King <hidden> Date: 2018-08-14 19:36:49
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:43:38PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
On 8/13/2018 5:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:
quoted
So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a
rough view on who is active.
I've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the
knowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say "this metric
is how we measure the quality of a contributor". It can be helpful, though,
to track some metrics and their change over time.
Here are a few measurements we can make:
Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.
It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these
automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people
don't have the whole list archive sitting around).
2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By, Reported-By,
etc.).
Using git repo:
$ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v
Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
At one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by
trailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it
for its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be
happy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.
The shell hackery here isn't too bad, but doing it internally is a
little faster, a little more robust (less parsing), and lets you show
more details about the commits themselves (e.g., who reviews whom).
3. Number of threads started by user.
You have "started" and "participated in". I guess one more would be
"closed", as in "solved a bug", but that is quite hard to tell without
looking at the content. Taking just the last person in a thread as the
closer means that an OP saying "thanks!" wrecks it. And somebody who
rants long enough that everybody else loses interest gets marked as a
closer. ;)
If you have other ideas for fun measurements, then please let me know.
I think I mentioned "surviving lines" elsewhere, which I do like this
(and almost certainly stole from Junio a long time ago):
# Obviously you can tweak this as you like, but the mass-imported bits
# in compat and xdiff tend to skew the counts. It's possibly worth
# counting language lines separately.
git ls-files '*.c' '*.h' :^compat :^contrib :^xdiff |
while read fn; do
# eye candy
echo >&2 "Blaming $fn..."
# You can use more/fewer -C to dig more or less for code moves.
# Possibly "-w" would help, though I doubt it shifts things more
# than a few percent anyway.
git blame -C --line-porcelain $fn
done |
perl -lne '/^author (.*)/ and print $1' |
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head
The output right now is:
35156 Junio C Hamano
22207 Jeff King
17466 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
12005 Johannes Schindelin
10259 Michael Haggerty
9389 Linus Torvalds
8318 Brandon Williams
7776 Stefan Beller
5947 Christian Couder
4935 René Scharfe
which seems reasonable.
-Peff
From: Stefan Beller <hidden> Date: 2018-08-14 19:48:13
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.
It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these
automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people
don't have the whole list archive sitting around).
With the advent of public inbox, this is easy to obtain?
quoted
2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By, Reported-By,
etc.).
Using git repo:
$ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v
Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
At one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by
trailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it
for its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be
happy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.
From: Jeff King <hidden> Date: 2018-08-14 20:06:15
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:47:59PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.
It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these
automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people
don't have the whole list archive sitting around).
With the advent of public inbox, this is easy to obtain?
For our project, yes. But I was thinking of a tool that could be used
for other projects, too.
quoted
At one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by
trailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it
for its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be
happy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.
He wanted grouping by committer, which we ended up adding as a separate
feature. I think there's some discussion of the trailer thing in that
thread.
-Peff
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Derrick Stolee [off-list ref] wrote:
2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By,
Reported-By, etc.).
Using git repo:
$ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v
Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
66 Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
22 Reviewed-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
19 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan [off-list ref]
12 Helped-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
11 Helped-by: Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
9 Helped-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
8 Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
7 Reported-by: Ramsay Jones [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Brandon Williams [off-list ref]
6 Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
6 Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
5 Mentored-by: Christian Couder [off-list ref]
5 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: René Scharfe [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider [off-list ref]
(There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful
metric.)
If your database keeps mail relationship (e.g. what mail is replied to
what according to In-Reply-To header) then look for mail replies to
patches. I think we have a rough picture who are active reviewers with
that.
--
Duy
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM Stefan Beller [off-list ref] wrote:
Ævar specifically pointed out that we might want to hear from you and Duy
if you want to attend a conference and if so how we can make that happen
(by choosing location/time/setting appropriately) IIUC.
Since my name shows up... I'm with Elijah on the travel resistance
thing (and am probably even lazier than him). I guess I will remain
the mystery in the git circle.
--
Duy
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2018-08-27 15:55:52
Hi Duy,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Derrick Stolee [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By,
Reported-By, etc.).
Using git repo:
$ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v
Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20
66 Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
22 Reviewed-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
19 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan [off-list ref]
12 Helped-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
11 Helped-by: Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
9 Helped-by: Jeff King [off-list ref]
8 Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren [off-list ref]
7 Reported-by: Ramsay Jones [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
7 Acked-by: Brandon Williams [off-list ref]
6 Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref]
6 Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
5 Mentored-by: Christian Couder [off-list ref]
5 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
4 Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
4 Helped-by: René Scharfe [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren [off-list ref]
3 Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider [off-list ref]
(There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful
metric.)
If your database keeps mail relationship (e.g. what mail is replied to
what according to In-Reply-To header) then look for mail replies to
patches. I think we have a rough picture who are active reviewers with
that.
Not really, as there is a high percentage of "on a tangent" replies in
many, many patch threads.
Ciao,
Dscho