Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> writes:
> Am 29.06.2006 um 00:13 schrieb Andreas Raab:
> 
> > Chris Muller wrote:
> >> If the 3.9 team used Berts script it should have preserved the author
> >> and timestamp information; I had updated the script to preserve it..
> >
> > I don't think this happened. I mean, I know how much work Stef is
> > putting into 3.9 but I just don't think that he's written more code
> > in 3.9 alone than, say Dan, has *ever* written for Squeak ;-) See
> > here:
> >
> >>>> 2231->''stephaneducasse''
> >>>> 1900->''di''
> 
> I guess Stef used an earlier version that did not have the fix by Chris.
> 
> Anyhow, to get the actual list of contributors youl'd have to find
> the authors of *every* earlier version anyway, so for the problem at
> hand this is irrelevant (though it would be preferrable to have the
> initials intact).


Yes, you are right.  This only lists the last person to touch a
method.  It does suggest there are less than 200 major authors of the
code in Squeak.  However, to get a completely accurate list, you'd
indeed want to scan through all of the deltas since Squeak 1.1.
Deltas would include the update changes (10,000 or so?) and presumably
all Monticello versions of packages in the full image.

By the way, what is the initials problem you are discussing?  I can
believe that the number of methods refactored by Stephane is larger
than the number of Dan's methods left untouched.  Is the issue you
mention more troubling than that?  For example, are there initials on
methods that have nothing to do with the identified person?



> Also, if, say, a parameter was added to a method
> and the old one deleted, shouldn't it still be considered the same
> method? Or if it was simply renamed? We lose the history in both cases.

We can obtain that history, if we improve on the way I calculated the
list of authors.  Given history information, I believe these questions
would mostly be moot.  There is only a problem if some of the versions
were written by more obscure authors that we cannot contact.

To handle the last few remaining methods, it may be helpful to have a
clean-room reimplementation team.....

-Lex