Community
Participate
Working Groups
I'm not sure whether there's a problem with the databases for TM or a general problem... but looking at the IP Log for TM: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?projectid=tools.tm It seems to be incomplete because it doesn't list the "significant EPL contributions" that were tracked via IPZilla. For instance, https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1161 talks about a significant contribution authored by "several IBM Employees". What's the value of listing each and every patch contributed by each and every contributor, if such significant contributions (authored by multiple contributors) are not listed at all? On a similar note, this contribution: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2256 was authored by 3 persons. The respective iplog+ entry in bugzilla is here: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=170910#c17 But the iplog+ system only gives credit to the attacher (Anna Dushistova), not to the other authors (Yu-Fen Kuo and Eugeniy Melekhov). In fact, Eugeniy Melekhov doesn't appear at all in the TM IP Log.
The automated log assumes that all contributions come through Bugzilla (where they can be marked iplog+). Maybe this particular contribution pre-dates the practice/requirement of taking the contribution first in Bugzilla and then to IPZilla? I'm not sure how to address this particular case (I'm sure that there are others like it) in an automated fashion. The multiple author information isn't consistely captured in a harvestable manner. This is one of the reasons why the IP Log tool's output can be customized. Unfortunately, I don't believe it currently solves the multiple authors problem.
Git commits that contain "Also-by" entries in the commit message will be attributed to the indicated authors. This doesn't help us with historical data; but it is a working move-forward position. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is much that we can do without considerable effort. Given that the status quo seems to be acceptable for the IP Team and--I assume by extension--the IP Advisory Committee, I'm going to mark this as WONTFIX. If anybody strongly disagrees, feel free to reopen.
