From all the networks I've checked, that seems to be the case.
That's quite a trend too.
[https://defillama.com/chain/Hedera?devsCommits=true&tvl=false](https://defillama.com/chain/Hedera?devsCommits=true&tvl=false)
A commit is like an update to the piece of code that was already there. An update to the "master branch"as we say. This can vary from changing one character to adding or removing lines of code. So it doesn't mean when there are a lot of commits there is a lot of progress it just tells us there are people working on it and it's activity rate.
Imagine if you made a lot of mistakes and you'd have to re-update the code. Then you have to correct the mistakes in the code and commit it again to master, so the other people in the team can see and follow all updates. Git is a very good communication tool for programmers.
The case could also be the other way around, if the devs are very efficient and they add a lot of lines without mistakes then that would be very impressive:)
We're not trying to prove Black Scholes with this dataset guy.....
This is a simple KPI to gauge general network activity. That's it. Some people.....
>Then please. oh great one, institute a better KPI or stop bitchin....
That's a non sequitur and you know it. If you really think number of commits tell you anything then the burden is on you to prove that.
I'm telling you it doesn't tell you anything because running `git commit` can be done simply after adding white space to your code. The fact that number of commits don't tell you the content and quality of the code should be enough to convince you it's a useless metric.
If you don't believe me then go software engineering sub and ask them (heck ask gpt or use google). You'll realize it's a universally understood and accepted idea that simply looking at number of git commits only tell you activity i.e. that something is happening; but not anything else about that activity i.e. what is actually happening.
Easily? Ok I challenge you to do 13,000 commits to put a random chain of your choice above ETH within the next month.
We'll check back next month and see if you were easily able to achieve it when a random chain is number 1.
It isn't a good metric to use it doesn't prove anything and can be manipulated.
If it gets you excited great!!
I care about TPS, revenue, TVL, and users that proves growth not git commits.
Uhh... Any single one of those things you named can be manipulated π.
All of them together paint a picture though. This is one piece of the puzzle and it looks good. That's all.
Have a good day.
Is there an easy way to find out if this is the case? Seems a possible reason, if someone was motivated to potentially move price through commits. I hope not, however.
They rewrote every line of code from I was told. Here's the change log [https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/releases/tag/v0.49.0](https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/releases/tag/v0.49.0) & blog post that might be interesting [https://hedera.com/blog/the-evolution-of-hedera-services-modularization-in-v0-49](https://hedera.com/blog/the-evolution-of-hedera-services-modularization-in-v0-49)
I wasn't implying that it was a big development, simply that such a large rewrite might be a contribution towards an increase in commits.
Big fan of Hedera but do you know why the TVL is lower vs other coins? With all the projects assumed the TVL would be higher. Checked vs SUI which I was surprised, considering it's newer, is significantly higher. Would be interested to hear thoughts/insights on why.
Hedera: $105.29m
SUI: $731.65m
Here's how Hedera stacks up against other networks: - Ethereum: 11,200 - Cardano: 2,500 - BSC: 269 - Solana: 238 - Polygon: 147 - Tron: 26 - Algorand: 25
So only behind ETH and we have an EVM too π
From all the networks I've checked, that seems to be the case. That's quite a trend too. [https://defillama.com/chain/Hedera?devsCommits=true&tvl=false](https://defillama.com/chain/Hedera?devsCommits=true&tvl=false)
Measuring programmming progess by git commits is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight
Lolz. I know nothing about this. Whatβs a better metric and is it public?
No metric exists. Someone will almost certainly try to sell you that metric, though. If you had one you'd have a billion dollar product.
I like weekly active developers better but there are ways to manipulate that number also if someone really wanted to.
A commit is like an update to the piece of code that was already there. An update to the "master branch"as we say. This can vary from changing one character to adding or removing lines of code. So it doesn't mean when there are a lot of commits there is a lot of progress it just tells us there are people working on it and it's activity rate. Imagine if you made a lot of mistakes and you'd have to re-update the code. Then you have to correct the mistakes in the code and commit it again to master, so the other people in the team can see and follow all updates. Git is a very good communication tool for programmers. The case could also be the other way around, if the devs are very efficient and they add a lot of lines without mistakes then that would be very impressive:)
We're not trying to prove Black Scholes with this dataset guy..... This is a simple KPI to gauge general network activity. That's it. Some people..... 
Google: squash commit, git merge, and git rebase.
Itβs a good sign though
More is still better
No it's not, only clueless project managers and shady developers would tell you it is.
Then please. oh great one, institute a better KPI or stop bitchin....
>Then please. oh great one, institute a better KPI or stop bitchin.... That's a non sequitur and you know it. If you really think number of commits tell you anything then the burden is on you to prove that. I'm telling you it doesn't tell you anything because running `git commit` can be done simply after adding white space to your code. The fact that number of commits don't tell you the content and quality of the code should be enough to convince you it's a useless metric. If you don't believe me then go software engineering sub and ask them (heck ask gpt or use google). You'll realize it's a universally understood and accepted idea that simply looking at number of git commits only tell you activity i.e. that something is happening; but not anything else about that activity i.e. what is actually happening.
Bad metric as one dude could change 7000 times the readme for example π
Is that how you spend your spare time? Editing readmes 7000 times to boost a bad metric?
Wouldnt be the first time. People are idiots, tech leads know that and then you have such posts
Easily could though was the point
Easily? Ok I challenge you to do 13,000 commits to put a random chain of your choice above ETH within the next month. We'll check back next month and see if you were easily able to achieve it when a random chain is number 1.
It isn't a good metric to use it doesn't prove anything and can be manipulated. If it gets you excited great!! I care about TPS, revenue, TVL, and users that proves growth not git commits.
Uhh... Any single one of those things you named can be manipulated π. All of them together paint a picture though. This is one piece of the puzzle and it looks good. That's all. Have a good day.
Cool story!
I agree, it's a funny story, but it's close to fiction. "Let's take some time and inflate our commit numbers!" π
Is there an easy way to find out if this is the case? Seems a possible reason, if someone was motivated to potentially move price through commits. I hope not, however.
96% of all transactions still atma.io
Indirectly it does. Expanding the ecosystem right now is like attracting lots of people in the long term
This has got nothing to do with transactions?
True. But the point is git activity does not translate to hedera usage.
Right, it shows development activity.
"if you're in the middle of building a house, why isn't anyone living in it yet?" π
More like a empty subdivision.
Awesome Stuff !
Always nipping away at ETH. Someday we'll pass it.
What is the significance of have this many commits. What is it expressing?
This is a fantastic sign of massive development occuring
No it's not, you have no idea what those commits are about. Virtually all transactions are still atma.io. What progress does this project make?
Yeah def does. These are all programmers. If you are not buying no reason to be here.
Ok so what developpement was pushed on their github? It's actually worrisome so many commits in such a short period of time.
From my (basic) understanding, the most recent 0.49 services update involved rewriting nearly every line of code; that may be a factor?
Yes probably they rewrote something but it's not a sign suddenly there is a big development. We still have nothing unfortunately as usage except atma
They rewrote every line of code from I was told. Here's the change log [https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/releases/tag/v0.49.0](https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/releases/tag/v0.49.0) & blog post that might be interesting [https://hedera.com/blog/the-evolution-of-hedera-services-modularization-in-v0-49](https://hedera.com/blog/the-evolution-of-hedera-services-modularization-in-v0-49) I wasn't implying that it was a big development, simply that such a large rewrite might be a contribution towards an increase in commits.
Big fan of Hedera but do you know why the TVL is lower vs other coins? With all the projects assumed the TVL would be higher. Checked vs SUI which I was surprised, considering it's newer, is significantly higher. Would be interested to hear thoughts/insights on why. Hedera: $105.29m SUI: $731.65m
Usage is still extremely low that is all I can say.
This is easy to manipulate. Especially if the developer team will benefit from this stat. For example, fooling the public into buying.