Ok, then an important question: is any author of a reporting tool ready to help other 2 authors to migrate to his tool?
Uko > On 30 Apr 2015, at 16:10, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > > 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 >> >> >> >
