The contributor list in the v3.0 release notes looks like it was generated against v3.0-rc3 rather than the final v3.0 tag. Three people whose first mainline commits landed between rc3 and the release are missing from the list of 58.
Reproduction
Using the mainline-only walk the release notes describe:
$ git log --first-parent --format='%an' v2.16..v3.0-rc3 | sort -u > rc3.txt
$ git log --first-parent --format='%an' v2.16..v3.0 | sort -u > v30.txt
$ wc -l < rc3.txt
60
$ wc -l < v30.txt
63
$ comm -13 rc3.txt v30.txt
Hyuntae Kim
kanishka
mittal-ishaan
None of these three are in the release notes. All three also have zero commits before v2.16 — they are first-time contributors to the project, so unlike everyone else who landed after rc3, they had no earlier work in the cycle to put them on the list already. That is why the cutoff is only visible for these three.
The missing commits
Hyuntae Kim
c8ec7e41f tests: add CLI tests for samsung vs-internal-log
b2e3069af plugins/samsung: add Samsung vendor specific extensions plugin
00e9818e4 shared: add shr_dir_prefix_len()
8ac4c7995 shared: handle a path with no file name in shr_mkdir_from_fname()
kanishka
bdb6e323a tests: use pathlib in the e2e test cases
57df8931c tests: use pathlib in the e2e runner
mittal-ishaan
03a67c2a2 libnvme: return an empty string for missing namespace attributes
Two side notes
- Thomas Glanzmann has mainline commits in
v2.16..v3.0-rc3 but is not on the list either. That one predates rc3, so it looks like a separate omission rather than part of the same cutoff.
- The "1,711 commits" figure also sits in the rc3 range rather than the final one:
--first-parent v2.16..v3.0-rc3 gives 1724 and v2.16..v3.0 gives 1795. I could not reproduce 1711 exactly with any filter I tried, so this is only weak corroboration, not a claim about the exact method used.
Disclosure: I am one of the three, and 3.0 is my first contribution to nvme-cli — which is exactly why the rc3 cutoff caught me. Raising it because the omission looks systematic rather than a one-off, and because the release notes are editable. No urgency whatsoever; 3.0 was a good release to land in, and the write-up was a genuinely good read.
The contributor list in the v3.0 release notes looks like it was generated against
v3.0-rc3rather than the finalv3.0tag. Three people whose first mainline commits landed between rc3 and the release are missing from the list of 58.Reproduction
Using the mainline-only walk the release notes describe:
None of these three are in the release notes. All three also have zero commits before
v2.16— they are first-time contributors to the project, so unlike everyone else who landed after rc3, they had no earlier work in the cycle to put them on the list already. That is why the cutoff is only visible for these three.The missing commits
Two side notes
v2.16..v3.0-rc3but is not on the list either. That one predates rc3, so it looks like a separate omission rather than part of the same cutoff.--first-parent v2.16..v3.0-rc3gives 1724 andv2.16..v3.0gives 1795. I could not reproduce 1711 exactly with any filter I tried, so this is only weak corroboration, not a claim about the exact method used.Disclosure: I am one of the three, and 3.0 is my first contribution to nvme-cli — which is exactly why the rc3 cutoff caught me. Raising it because the omission looks systematic rather than a one-off, and because the release notes are editable. No urgency whatsoever; 3.0 was a good release to land in, and the write-up was a genuinely good read.