In what way is it 'GitHub-centric' or 'artificially capped' though?
If I did it with `git shortlog -s` it's also going to omit the contributors from the .. I don't even know what centric way you say vim did it, and over-report commits for those who were allowed to have their names recorded properly but against commits actually authored by someone else.
It's just totally non-standard against the grain git usage.
> In what way is it 'GitHub-centric' or 'artificially capped' though?
The parent set the context of this thread by providing links to GitHub pages, that's for the "GitHub-centric", and the GitHub UI caps many of its listings to 100 items (100 pages of search results, etc.) so you only get to see the 100 first contributors, that's for the "artificially capped".
> If I did it with `git shortlog -s`
You would use an inappropriate measurement method that doesn't take into account the nature and history of the subject of your study and thus get meaningless data.
> It's just totally non-standard against the grain git usage.
There is no such thing as "standard" git usage, especially when factoring GitHub into the discussion. There are "modern" expectations, though, that the Vim project doesn't meet because it is much older than those expectations. Maybe you don't like it but it matters when discussing metrics.
FWIW, the move to Git of "the kernel" also dropped more than a decade of pre-2005/pre-git history so `git shortlog -s` won't give you the full picture there either.
If I did it with `git shortlog -s` it's also going to omit the contributors from the .. I don't even know what centric way you say vim did it, and over-report commits for those who were allowed to have their names recorded properly but against commits actually authored by someone else.
It's just totally non-standard against the grain git usage.