[dspillett]

One thing to note, maybe particularly with reference to the “who wrote vim” analysis⁰, is that depending on workflow this can attribute more to internal contributors than you might assume by the results.

If a patch or pull request is sent but an internal contributor (the only internal contributor in Vim's case for a long time) reformatted it before merging then the same work is double-counted (if full history is kept) or only attributed to the reformatter (if history is squashed during/before merge).

This doesn't make the result wrong, of course, the tool is doing exactly what it says on the tin. But it does mean that, without reviewing the contribution process (current and past), you might need to be less definite¹, when stating a meaning derived from the result, because how the result is interpreted might not be quite right given the input data available.

----

[0] https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2025/03/who-will-maintain-vi... in case you skipped by the link when looking at git-who's readme.

[1] perhaps just by giving caveats to make sure that the reader has sufficient context regarding the limit of the process