Compare to all-contributors #45

RichardLitt · 2017-11-01T19:19:14Z

All Contributors is a similar tool. What do they do differently? How can we help them? How can we work together to make contributions easier?

tgetgood · 2017-11-01T20:24:38Z

That's interesting. All Contributors looks mostly like a manifesto that alignes with what name-your-contributors does pretty closely. It's a very different technique though; we're automatically scraping the list of contributions where contributions are defined as certain GitHub actions. Whereas, all-contributors-cli is a tool to make manual maintenance of a contributors list easier.

That has the obvious tradeoffs: automation is less work, but doing it by hand lets you be more generous and flexible with your definition of contribution.

We could output json that conforms to the all-contributors-cli format and use it to generate a contributors section in the README. Better than making our own I'd reckon.

tgetgood · 2018-01-15T17:30:21Z

I've put a bit more legwork into this, and I think that we have little to gain from integration with all-contributors. They may have something to gain, but it would be fairly minimal.

To explain:

All Contributors divides contributions into a set of categories which we can't map to. They have code & review to which we can map cleanly, but whether code is a test, or a bug fix, or documentation is beyond our ken from the GitHub API alone. That takes a human (or a sufficiently smart code reader) to make the call. At the same time NYC considers comments and reactions to be contributions and I don't know how those would map to the All Contributors taxonomy.

So using All Contributors to produce our contributors sections isn't viable.

We could produce a version of NYC which only outputs what we know AC could handle and that could help automate the initial setup of a project for AC, but we'd have to talk to them to see how much benefit there really is. The number of devs on a project tends to be relatively small, so I don't think it would be very large.

Berkmann18 · 2019-01-28T16:42:59Z

The thing with all-contributors is that even tho we have a bot, it still (just like the CLI) can't automatically fetch contributors and put them in the list as it would only know names of contributors on repo and see who's missing.
But we are looking into implementing the auto fetching mechanism that name-your-contributors has.

I'm personally very keen on collaborating with you guys and I'm sure the rest of the core team are as well.

I've put a bit more legwork into this, and I think that we have little to gain from integration with all-contributors. They may have something to gain, but it would be fairly minimal.

It might be minimal in contribution/code but in terms of functionality and use cases, it would be a lot (especially since quite a few users expected our tools to have this functionality) and having this would be a huge improvement for both the CLI and the bot.

All Contributors divides contributions into a set of categories which we can't map to. They have code & review to which we can map cleanly, but whether code is a test, or a bug fix, or documentation is beyond our ken from the GitHub API alone. That takes a human (or a sufficiently smart code reader) to make the call. At the same time NYC considers comments and reactions to be contributions and I don't know how those would map to the All Contributors taxonomy.

It's true that some categories are difficult to map contributors to from the Github but as I explained here it's better to start with some categories (ie. code, bug, ...) and then work our way through like I illustrated in this diagram then trying to map a multitude of types.

Relevant discussions: all-contributors-cli#69, all-contributors-cli#117, all-contributors#18

/ref Emoji key (category table)

There's probably a more efficient contribution classification than what I drafted in the diagram but having the possibility to automatically get and add contributors who committed code, wrote issues, responded to questions, made/reviewed PRs while having the rest done (semi-) manually is better than how it is now.

As for what you guys would gain, well here's a list of things that comes to mind:

you get to have a well-formed contributors table which shows who did what in a clear and understandable way
you get to have the possibility to add/check contributors/contributions via the CLI or less manually via the bot
you get to have other GHers to transmit the idea that it's great to recognise contributions and also other eyes and minds that could help in improving your tool (at least, I'm one of them)

I'm going to have another look at the contribution types that this package finds and make another diagram showcasing a way in which NYC and AC could co-operate to in regards to finding who did what.

Berkmann18 · 2019-02-05T14:42:35Z

Friendly ping @tgetgood @RichardLitt!

RichardLitt · 2019-02-05T21:41:09Z

* you get to have the possibility to add/check contributors/contributions via the CLI or less manually via the bot

This sounds pretty awesome, to me. Also, the last point.

Thanks for the friendly ping - I was traveling this week, and haven't had time to really look into working on this. Let's see if we can improve that.

What's the best way forward? Video call? Figuring it out here?

Berkmann18 · 2019-02-05T23:26:31Z

@RichardLitt I'm pretty flexible so I wouldn't really mind.
I guess, getting started here and then getting more people onto a video call or instant chat would be the way to go.

RichardLitt · 2019-02-05T23:29:50Z

Word. Ok, for now - I think fixing the egregious issues is the main thing. Been working on the travis for the past half hour. I think I have it fixed? Need to update the other deps, now, and then attack #85.

Berkmann18 · 2019-02-15T15:44:56Z

I've got around to make the diagram I was on about when I said:

[...] make another diagram showcasing a way in which NYC and AC could co-operate to in regards to finding who did what.

It can be accessed here.

RichardLitt · 2019-02-15T16:29:46Z

Pretty much. I wonder if we should have it more fine-grained; for instance, getting the label of 'bug' and putting that in the nyc output?

Berkmann18 · 2019-02-15T16:46:29Z

Pretty much. I wonder if we should have it more fine-grained; for instance, getting the label of 'bug' and putting that in the nyc output?

It will certainly help to have issues pre-populated with labels (cf. example of bug template) which would then be kept in the JSON object which would help in distinguishing what was the nature of the issue someone created.

That way, it would be possible to see what labels (ie. categories) were linked to a PR and an issue which would allow NYC and AC-CLI to see what category/categories a contributor would fall into.

The objects in `prCreators` and `issueCreators` now have an additional `labels` field exposing the labels of the relevant PRs/issues associated with a contributor re mntnr#73 (comment) and mntnr#45 (comment)

* feat(queries): added labels to `*Creators` The objects in `prCreators` and `issueCreators` now have an additional `labels` field exposing the labels of the relevant PRs/issues associated with a contributor re #73 (comment) and #45 (comment) * perf(queries): optimised the contribution merge * test(queries): added a test case * refactor(queries): added a missing sorting call And fixed some lint errors * chore: fix linting error * build(travis): fixed some typos

protoEvangelion · 2019-09-21T19:48:26Z

Are there any blockers preventing this feature from being possible?

Berkmann18 · 2019-09-21T21:59:45Z

@protoEvangelion On my PR (^196) there is.

For some reason the data read by fs.readFileSync(configPath, 'utf-8') in ./util/config-file.js sometimes ends up being 0 which screws up the adding process.
Cf. #187

If you can help, it will be much appreciated.
I haven't looked at the blocking issue since quite some time (busy with other stuff and a much-needed break) so I'll probably be able to go around that but it seems I'm the only active core member from AC.

protoEvangelion · 2019-09-21T23:50:43Z

Ended up hacking together a workflow that worked for my needs and was much faster than adding one by one: all-contributors/cli#117 (comment)

RichardLitt · 2019-10-01T12:01:03Z

@protoEvangelion Let me know if there is anything I can do to make this easier for you, outside of your work around.

patcon mentioned this issue Nov 16, 2017

There has to be a way to automate this all-contributors/all-contributors#18

Open

RichardLitt added help wanted enhancement labels Feb 5, 2019

Berkmann18 mentioned this issue Feb 18, 2019

feat(queries): added labels to *Creators #92

Merged

Berkmann18 added this to In progress in Backlog Apr 17, 2019

Berkmann18 mentioned this issue May 13, 2019

feat: Auto discover contributors all-contributors/cli#184

Closed

4 tasks

Berkmann18 mentioned this issue May 21, 2019

feat: auto-fetching all-contributors/cli#186

Closed

3 tasks

Berkmann18 mentioned this issue Jul 17, 2019

feat: auto-fetching (initial iteration) all-contributors/cli#196

Open

6 tasks

jdalrymple mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2020

feat: auto-fetching - continuation of #196 all-contributors/cli#259

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Compare to all-contributors #45

Compare to all-contributors #45

RichardLitt commented Nov 1, 2017

tgetgood commented Nov 1, 2017

tgetgood commented Jan 15, 2018

Berkmann18 commented Jan 28, 2019 •

edited

Berkmann18 commented Feb 5, 2019

RichardLitt commented Feb 5, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 5, 2019 •

edited

RichardLitt commented Feb 5, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 •

edited

RichardLitt commented Feb 15, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 •

edited

protoEvangelion commented Sep 21, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Sep 21, 2019

protoEvangelion commented Sep 21, 2019

RichardLitt commented Oct 1, 2019

Compare to all-contributors #45

Compare to all-contributors #45

Comments

RichardLitt commented Nov 1, 2017

tgetgood commented Nov 1, 2017

tgetgood commented Jan 15, 2018

Berkmann18 commented Jan 28, 2019 • edited

Berkmann18 commented Feb 5, 2019

RichardLitt commented Feb 5, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 5, 2019 • edited

RichardLitt commented Feb 5, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 • edited

RichardLitt commented Feb 15, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 • edited

protoEvangelion commented Sep 21, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Sep 21, 2019

protoEvangelion commented Sep 21, 2019

RichardLitt commented Oct 1, 2019

Berkmann18 commented Jan 28, 2019 •

edited

Berkmann18 commented Feb 5, 2019 •

edited

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 •

edited

Berkmann18 commented Feb 15, 2019 •

edited