merges

If you're sending patches over email, guess what: you're doing merges, whether you call them so or not.

My team handles this by committing to personal dev branches, then reviewing relatively small merges to mainline.

This is explained that ffmpeg merges back a lot of libav but not so much in the other direction.

Most of his commits are merges from libav and other forks, and not code commits.

Not having looked at the git repository, but if merges happen often, that can very much artificially inflate the number of commits attributed to him, except if the stats were gathered with --no-merges.

That leads to bigger merges than if everyone is committing to master all the time.

It merges a Twitter style layout and streaming, with voting and a sophisticated search engine.

Here's the command that generated those outputs [1]: git shortlog -ns --no-merges v11..

His commit rate is high partly because he merges all libav commits too.

Trunk based development leads to smaller merges because you do them more frequently.

The best way I found previously was with a bunch of chained.merges, one for each option: opts = {}.merge(some_flag1?

In any case, I would hope the stats were gathered with --no-merges; if not, that would indeed skew the stats.

Maybe even the opposite." and "Do friendly merges, and if you like do hostile merges.

Rather, I advise using: git checkout master git fetch origin git merge origin/master --ff-only This will ensure that git only does "fast-forward" merges, and does not end up accidentally merging things - and keeps 'origin' as the system-of-record for what's been merged.

The generated comment "graemerocher merged 1 commit into gpc:master from CounterPillow:factoryfactory 7 hours ago" probably reveals that the nominal project manager just merges in everything without checking it properly, relying on his underlings to do all the real work.