I think it's the contributions merged in master that are in the 1.13 release but not 1.12.
However, the timeframe for that is the same -- it is a different period of 6 weeks, but still a 6 week period.
However, the timeframe for that is the same -- it is a different period of 6 weeks, but still a 6 week period.
Someone could open a PR today and not see it merged for a year, surely?
They could, but this counts people who have landed a patch, not opened a PR. That many people got a patch into this release.
If contributed is interpreted to mean "code was merged" not "work was done" then the period is a fairly static 6 weeks, but there's really no reason to be astonished about how many people were involved, as it could contain work from multiple months ago.
If contributed is interpreted to mean "work was done" then the number of people that contributed in this period compared to some other will have more meaning.
I think OJFord is working from the second interpretation.
This is actually something I'm kinda sad about; I want to get better at representing work in a broader way. For example, get a patch into Cargo, but not rustc? You're not on this list. I don't like it. Working on it though...
I'm disputing the six weeks figure by assuming exactly what you outline above - that 'work done' is different from 'code merged' - so contributors may well have produced the work over a period of a year or more, and it just happens that those contributions came together for this release
Anyway, it's not really important, I didn't mean for this to descend so far - regardless of the time frame it's fantastic that so many are contributing to the project :)
Regardless, as I said below, it's great that so many people are contributing whatever the time frame :)
[1]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/12/12/1.0-Timeline.html