[blurker]

Oof, please no. Simple metrics like LoC, story points and number of commits are lazy ways to evaluate developers. And people will recognize this so the metric becomes the goal. Might as well replace managers with a bot. Good managers should be in touch with the full picture of their reports work and not rely on simple heuristics. That's what makes a really good manager.

edit: fixed autocorrects

[irateswami]

> Simple metrics like LoC, story points and number of commits are lazy ways to evaluate developers.

I mean, looking through the git logs means you look at code contributions. If you're a software engineer, that's kind of, ya know, your entire jobs. You can get a lot from looking at someone's contributions, especially in code or documentation or slack responses. Volume doesn't mean shit though, that's the trick.

> Might as well replace managers with a bot.

Yes, please.

[sdesol]

> Volume doesn't mean shit though, that's the trick.

Based on having studied lots and lots of open source projects, I can say volume has a very strong correlation with experience. The more people contribute, the more likely they have been contributing for a long time. A novice contributing a lot to me, can be a sign they are extremely good or they are trying to game the system or they don't know what they are doing and are constantly fixing previous mistakes.

[8note]

My git logs don't represent all the code I didn't write. Solving a problem doesn't necessitate me writing the code, or even having code written at all.

[blurker]

Yes exactly. A really good manager will recognize this and will not rely on simple heuristics to value people.