code contributions for 2024, WIP version

Hi,

As many of you are probably aware, I have been doing an annual blog
post on who contributes to PostgreSQL development for some years now.
It includes information on lines of code committed to PostgreSQL, and
also emails sent to the list. This year, I got a jump on analyzing the
commit log, and a draft of the data covering January-November of 2024
has been uploaded in pg_dump format to here:

https://sites.google.com/site/robertmhaas/contributions

I'm sending this message to invite anyone who is interested to review
the data in the commits2024 table and send me corrections. For
example, it's possible that there are cases where I've failed to pick
out the correct primary author for a commit; or where somebody's name
is spelled in two different ways; or where somebody's name is not
spelled the way that they prefer.

You'll notice that the table has columns "lines" and "xlines". I have
set xlines=0 in cases where (a) I considered the commit to be a large,
mechanical commit such as a pgindent run or translation updates; or
(b) the commit was reverting some other commit that occurred earlier
in 2024; or (c) the commit was subsequently reverted. When I run the
final statistics, those commits will still count for the statistics
that count the number of commits, but the lines they inserted will not
be counted as lines of code contributed in 2024. Also for clarity,
please be aware that the "ncauthor" column is not used in the final
reporting; that is just there so that I can set
author=coalesce(ncauthor,committer) at a certain phase of the data
preparation. Corrections should be made to the author column, not
ncauthor.

If you would like to correct the data, please send me your corrections
off-list, as a reply to this email, ideally in the form of one or more
UPDATE statements. If you would like to complain about the
methodology, I can't stop you, but please bear in mind that (1) this
is already a lot of work and (2) I've always been upfront in my blog
post about what the limitations of the methodology are and I do my
best not to suggest that this method is somehow perfect or
unimpeachable and (3) you're welcome to publish your own blog post
where you compute things differently. I'm open to reasonable
suggestions for improvement, but if your overall view is that this
sucks or that I suck for doing it, I'm sorry that you feel that way
but giving me that feedback probably will not induce me to do anything
differently.

Donning my asbestos underwear, I remain yours faithfully,

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com