The more interesting question with git statistics is what they are actually useful for. Tools like this seem to be guided by which data is available and easy to extract. What is commits per hour useful for?<p>Sometimes these metrics are useful. For example, the top committers are interesting, because it instantly gives you a good hint who is very experienced with the codebase and its structure.<p>Two metrics I find useful to know where to refactor: Files with the most commits and with the most authors.
Another alternative that I like is pepper¹. It doesn't have the interactive menu interface that the OP script has, but it can produce nice results² and does support other VCSs.<p>As an added benefit you can just use pepper to generate the data and shift to <i>your</i> favourite tool for display.<p>1. <a href="https://jgehring.github.io/pepper/" rel="nofollow">https://jgehring.github.io/pepper/</a>
2. <a href="https://jgehring.github.io/pepper/gallery/" rel="nofollow">https://jgehring.github.io/pepper/gallery/</a>
> Extracting this information is not always trivial, mostly because of a gadzillion options to a gadzillion git commands – I don’t think there is a single person alive who knows them all. Probably not even Linus Torvalds himself :).<p>Or Junio Hamano, for that matter (although there is a greater chance :)
In the same vein, git-extras (<a href="https://github.com/tj/git-extras/blob/master/Commands.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/tj/git-extras/blob/master/Commands.md</a>) has many similar metrics within a wider git enhancement suite.
So I installed and use `git open`. How do these applications get to work, prefaced by `git`? Wouldn't `git quick-stats` just invoke `git` with an invalid parameter?