Output of git count --all
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 18.1k
- Forks
- 1.2k
- Avg merge
- 5d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Hello,
Just small question about readability:
when I use git count --all I can see from here:
hemanth.hm (216)
TJ Holowaychuk (134)
Tj Holowaychuk (117)
spacewander (71)
Nicolai Skogheim (57)
Jonhnny Weslley (43)
LeeW (26)
Nimit Kalra (24)
and with git shortlog -s -n | awk '{print}'
216 hemanth.hm
133 TJ Holowaychuk
115 Tj Holowaychuk
71 spacewander
57 Nicolai Skogheim
43 Jonhnny Weslley
26 LeeW
24 Nimit Kalra
For me the second one is far more readable.
What do you think?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at the linked bin/git-count script and compare its current output with the shown git shortlog command. Clarify the desired readability change before editing; done would mean git count --all consistently produces the agreed author and count formatting.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- git, shell
- Domain
- cli
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100