Subbu Iyer’s Post

After Github Enterprise, most of the companies doesn't look at green dots anymore because you can reach 3k/year easily if you work with Github. I saw companies looking at your commits and README.md, to see how do you write and understand how do you act in a git project.

Great insight, but I beg to differ to an extent. I've come across awesome/top-tier/10x senior devs who main both quantity and quality on GitHub. I would strongly advise - that "green field" on one Github profile does matter(I believe it still strongly does to recruiters). Strive to be consistent enough - be intentional about keeping it green - with both quality and quantity.

🌟 Reposting from a seasoned dev with 10+ years of experience. 🌟 (I have like 10 months of experience so here's my take) He makes a valid point about the importance of quality > quantity in development work. I couldn’t agree more. However, as a developer who is relatively new to the field, I’d like to add my perspective. 🌟 Quality is indeed paramount, but for beginners like myself and many others in my network, consistency is the key to growth and improvement. Consistency > Stagnation. Quality > Quantity. 🚀 In the past 100 days, I have not missed a single day of coding. On any given day, I spent 1-5 hours programming. This includes researching, reading documentation, learning logic, building, and most importantly, understanding what my code is doing. It’s not just about the number of commits or the ‘green dots’ on my GitHub profile, it’s about the steady progress I’m making every day. 🌟 While the quantity of Git activity doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of a dev’s work, it does show their dedication, perseverance, and passion for learning & improving. These are qualities that are just as valuable, especially for those of us who are just starting our journey in this field. 🚀 So, to all the new devs out there, keep coding, keep learning, and remember - consistency is the key to your growth. Your journey of a thousand miles begins with a single line of code. 😉

Stop hiring developers based on green dots in GitHub profiles. The best developers I know are not even on GitHub. They develop closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. Git activity shows quantity, not quality. Measure developers based on the value they bring to a repo, not by how often they commit to a repo.

Stop hiring developers based on green dots in GitHub profiles. The best developers I know are not even on GitHub. They develop closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. Git activity shows quantity, not quality. Measure developers based on the value they bring to a repo, not by how often they commit to a repo.

Let's rethink our approach to hiring developers. Simply relying on green dots in GitHub profiles isn't enough. Some of the most talented developers I've encountered aren't active on GitHub; instead, they're crafting exceptional closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. We need to shift our focus from measuring quantity through Git activity to evaluating the value developers bring to a repository. It's about quality over quantity when assessing their contributions. #hiring #development

I can relate that as I’ve been using Gitlab more than Github as it has very efficient in user experience, has a great dashboard to help divide tasks and other great features.

Stop hiring developers based on green dots in GitHub profiles. The best developers I know are not even on GitHub. They develop closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. Git activity shows quantity, not quality. Measure developers based on the value they bring to a repo, not by how often they commit to a repo.

Spot on. I've led teams, built startups, and made many hires. I've seen all sorts of metrics paraded as the gold standard for evaluating developers. Whether it's lines of code, bug counts, or sprint points, none of them tell the full story and can be gamed easily. What really counts is harder to measure: things like problem-solving, communication, and adaptability. I've worked with engineers who barely touch GitHub but can craft code like art. And I've seen folks ace coding tests only to stumble when the real-world complexity hits. At the end of the day, it's about the difference someone makes in the trenches, not the numbers on their profile.

this guy prefers people working on closed-source projects on gitlab to open-source on github if they're trying to say that commits for the sake of filling up the contribution graph is not desirable, i agree with that to an extent but if they're really saying that closed-source is better than open-source, i disagree (except for businesses where open-source would hurt them) and who cares at all whether someone uses GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, a self hosted git server, whatever I agree that quality >>> quantity, but how is a recruiter ever going to judge your quality without being able to see your open-source commits? you're not going to invite them to a private repository