[pwdisswordfish0]

The problem lies in the question. In the worst circumstances, it's indicating survivorship bias, and in the best circumstances the only truths it reveals are tautological. Using number of commits to measure productivity is the new version of thinking that the more number of lines of code that a programmer writes, the better.

Not that this will stop a segment of the industry from flushing a non-trivial amount of resources down the drain learning this lesson, and inevitably leaving a chunk of stalwarts who never really learn anything. It was clear that was going to happen when the "social coding" site that everyone was flocking to put so much emphasis on activity measured in number of commits, forks, and other administrative details. Things which were only any good for advertising the site's own user engagement in its pre-IPO/-acquisition phase, and too many people mistaking it as a measurement of something else.