One is also easier to improve/maintain.
Stef
Le 28/4/15 14:31, Andrei Chis a écrit :
Yes, some level of unification would be nice, especially for the part
about users agreeing to send usage data and persisting that setting.
Also at least two general levels of details about what data is being
send that tools should follow would help (full anonymous vs. include
class names/method names ?).
Last but not least, a single entry point for sending that data over
the network would help.
How data is collected/stored will differ from tool to tool, but
agreeing on the previous aspects would make it much easier to collect
data.
Cheers,
Andrei
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr
<mailto:marcus.den...@inria.fr>> wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com
<mailto:yuriy.tymc...@me.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> from time to time we have to collect a usage data in order to
improve our tools. For example I’d like to collect data in future
about how do you treat code critics: do they occur, do you outfox
them, do you mark them as false positives? If we had answers to
these questions, we could really make good and helpful critics.
>
> For now I know that there are 3 projects which collect data:
> - GTSpotter
> - Shoreline
> - DFlow (not in image by default).
>
> Should I make 4th data collection for QualityAssistant? Or maybe
we can do some unification?
>
I would love unification!
It’s not only good for the researchers, but even for the user: I
do not want to decide 5 times to give data to research,
but I want to decide it once…
Marcus
