The question is not quite "who wrote this patch", but "to whom does the node that is the patch belong". Some patches, for reasons lost on me, are owned by developers. Some are owned by pmdev to allow anyone in pmdev to modify them, thus allowing colaberation -- but that's now frowned upon, because it's annoying for various reasons not worth going into -- not the least of which is that it makes it difficult to tell who wrote what.

Also, there's an important reason demerphq missed that the absolute count of patches isn't useful -- sometimes you're write a patch one way, and it doesn't quite work. It's your choice if you want to write another patch, or just edit the old one. I generally prefer to edit the old one; demerphq generally perfers to write a new one. Neither method is really better then the other. (This isn't to say that demerphq hasn't done more then I have; he has.)

I generally prefer to edit the old one; demerphq generally perfers to write a new one.

I go both ways, but i like to have rollback patches for my major development points. So once I feel a node is stable but will continue to work on it, ill usually start a new patch at that point. Also, there is a magnification factor for whoever does minor changes on old infrastructure noes. The old node needs a backup patch first, so effectively you get 2x patches for each old code patch. Since ive done a number of "clean up old code" sessions I have a lot more patchs becuase of it. A recent one probably added about 50 patches to my roster, but only involved a few hours work.

(This isn't to say that demerphq hasn't done more then I have; he has.)

Personally i dont measure things like this. I may have pumped out more code (probably becuase you had a life and i didnt :-), but youve been essential to me doing so many times. As you know full well, i can ask a lot of stupid questions in a short amount of time. :-)

---
demerphq