Fix authorship

[lrq3000]

This PR fixes the authorship.

Interestingly, that's one of the instances showing the limitations of git-fame, since your first commit credited my original code as your contribution. No issue with that first commit, but that's why I chose to remove the git-fame percentages as they were misleading.

Other (non necessarily exhaustive) commits list of the genesis of py-make in chronological order:

• tqdm/tqdm@f54e371#diff-60f61ab7a8d1910d86d9fda2261620314edcae5894d5aaa236b821c7256badd7
• tqdm/tqdm@8b89e16#diff-60f61ab7a8d1910d86d9fda2261620314edcae5894d5aaa236b821c7256badd7
• tqdm/tqdm@5ddf608#diff-60f61ab7a8d1910d86d9fda2261620314edcae5894d5aaa236b821c7256badd7
• tqdm/tqdm@bcf3cca#diff-60f61ab7a8d1910d86d9fda2261620314edcae5894d5aaa236b821c7256badd7

BTW could you please give me back admin access to this repo? I would like to (somewhat) maintain it as I am still using it and see some parts that need improvements, and also some standing PRs. Thank you in advance @casperdcl !

[casperdcl]

I wouldn't say this is a limitation of git or tools like git-fame, it's more of a problem when code is copy-pasted from a different repository to create a new project, it's not really possible to track original author stats line by line.

[lrq3000]

Exactly, it's not an issue specific to git-fame but of any quantitative-only approach to contributions assessment. In this case you copied the code because you were the one to make it into a module (which was a great idea), so there was no way around, apart maybe from using some git magic to try to impersonate me, which would at best be a hack of git and would also be misleading as it would imply i committed in this repo directly which i did not at the time.

Thank you for merging this PR and trusting me with maintaining this repo, I'll take care of the PRs and some tidying soon!