Comment by rektide
4 years ago
Apple is #32 in contributor commits[1]. Between SAP and Glassdoor, with ~7000 commits. You need to start adding zeroes and then some to get to Google's number of commits.
We shouldn't just measure in commits. I'd be interested to hear the case made. Where has Apple lead in Kubernetes? What have been their major initiatives? That'd be interesting to hear.
[1] https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/9/companies-table?orgId=1
There is currently an Apple employee on the k8s steering committee, so they could mean that.
Or, since the sentence is applying to a list of projects rather than to k8s specfically, it could be just a misparse and they're not claiming to lead each of the listed projects.
If you don't want the pointy-haired bosses to start measuring productivity by number of commits, start with not doing so yourself.
Commit count is largely meaningless and a low-effort way to fling around "contribution" numbers. For example, large commit numbers could be a reflection of a specific company's internal conventions around making a larger number of small changes as their own commit.
Now it's certainly plausible to me that Google is a much more major contributor to Kubernetes than Apple, but you need better numbers for showing that. For example, which companies have contributed to designing and implementing the major features in the last 5 releases?
Yeah, I'm thinking of some colleagues that can't remember any syntax that do 20 commits on the same line of code and don't clean it up.
I really have no idea, I just find it amusing that they put it front and center on their open source website.
To be fair if you look at the last year of contributions they’re #12 which is better.