| > Thank you for the reply. You are welcome and your response has been extremely helpful as well. > I think at the core a comparison to Next is still apples to oranges imho and unnecessary here. I agree it is probably an apples and oranges thing from a tech perspective, but clearly this isn't the case from a marketing one. I responded because somebody had concerns about the health of Redwood compared to Next. > "Is PR A of greater quality or value than PR B?" This isn't really want I want to do. Understanding how a PR affects a project isn't so much about quantifying value, but rather, it is about quantifying effort. A single line change can take takes days or months to get right and I want to better capture the effort required to make a change. The questions/metrics that you raised are quite good and it is something that I will be working with Open Sauced (which you know I believe) to surface. The pattern that you've described is something that I wish to confirm as the goal is to find a way for maintainers to easily identify contributors worth nurturing and for contributors to find projects worth their time to contribute to. > Is this for the org or the repo? Below is a combination of all recently active repos from Redwood https://oss.gitsense.com/insights/github?q=merged%3Atrue%2Bp... Below are recently active repos for Next https://oss.gitsense.com/insights/github?q=pull-age%3A%3C%3D... Redwood had 79 unique contributors with one or more merged pull requests and Next had 214 unique contributors with one or more merged pull requests. If we ignore the merged criteria, Redwood had 96 unique contributors and Next had 350. |