Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Marco,
I assert that the incubation checklist is pretty good, but could still 
be tweaked.


The question to ask is:
"Is anyone up to the challenge of refining the checklist, and then 
rallying the incubation community to agree on an improved checklist?"


Warm regards, Cameron

On 16/05/2016 8:25 pm, Marco Afonso wrote:

Thanks Cameron,

CMMI is vast and easily one can get lost on it, losing focus on the 
pratical side of software that we use daily.


In CMMI area of Software Quality Assurance Metrics [1], I found a very 
limited number of metrics compared to the ones that we can found in 
here [2] [3], namely reliability, efficiency, security, performance, 
portability, usability and other quality metrics. This is what i'm 
missing on your evaluation method :)


[1] http://www.sqa.net/softwarequalitymetrics.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_quality
[3] http://www.spinellis.gr/codequality/

--
Regards,
Marco Afonso
http://goo.gl/ZDtQjm



--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

[Markus Neteler]

Hi,

concerning Software Quality Assurance Metrics, some notes on the GRASS
GIS project on which such software metrics were applied in the past.

Here some selected papers which we published on the matter:
* Di Penta, M, M. Neteler, G. Antoniol, E. Merlo, 2005: A
Language-Independent Software Renovation Framework. Journal of Systems
and Software, 77(3), pp. 225-240.
http://staff.rcost.unisannio.it/mdipenta/papers/jss2005.pdf

* Antoniol, G., M. Di Penta, and M. Neteler, 2003. Moving to smaller
libraries via clustering and genetic algorithms. In CSMR 2003, 7th
IEEE European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering,
Proc. IEEE omputer Society, 307-316.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.58.988=rep1=pdf

* Di Penta, M., M. Neteler, G. Antoniol and E. Merlo, 2002. Knowledge
Based Library Refactoring for an Open Source Project. IEEE Working
Conference on Reverse Engineering WCRE, Oct. 28 - Nov. 1, Richmond,
Virginia, USA. Proc. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 319-328.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.4.4165rep=rep1type=pdf

Using an automated approach, we identified cloned code (which easily
happens in a software project which started decades back in 1982),
reducing the overall code while reaching better code quality.
In addition, we refactored all source code from K C notation to ANSI
C (given roughly 1 million lines of code, the SVN commit took a few
hours back then :-).

Cheers,
Markus

-- 
Markus Neteler
http://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
http://grass.osgeo.org
http://courses.neteler.org/blog
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

[Marco Afonso]

Thanks Cameron,

CMMI is vast and easily one can get lost on it, losing focus on the
pratical side of software that we use daily.

In CMMI area of Software Quality Assurance Metrics [1], I found a very
limited number of metrics compared to the ones that we can found in here
[2] [3], namely reliability, efficiency, security, performance,
portability, usability and other quality metrics. This is what i'm missing
on your evaluation method :)

[1] http://www.sqa.net/softwarequalitymetrics.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_quality
[3] http://www.spinellis.gr/codequality/

-- 
Regards,
Marco Afonso
http://goo.gl/ZDtQjm
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Marco,
You have suggested that the OSGeo Incubation Graduation Checklist has 
zero software quality criteria? I respectfully disagree.


It doesn't go down to the detail of "what UI tests exist?" Such criteria 
are project specific, and different for each project. You might be 
interested to do some research on software quality auditing practices, 
such as CMMI [1]. The extensive CMMI auditing practices spend more time 
on auditing the software development process than on specifying tests 
for quality. This is because there is a very strong correlation between 
good development processes and software quality.


If you look more closely at the graduation checklist, you will notice 
there are checks for testing practices, and development processes which 
have a track record in producing good software.


The Incubation checklist is not perfect, and could potentially be 
improved. Addressing project quality is typically not very glamorous and 
testing volunteers are almost always greatly appreciated.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration
(Warning - reading this doc will be a huge time sink)

Warm regards, Cameron


On 16/05/2016 8:46 AM, Marco Afonso wrote:


Hi Cameron,

An amazing elaborate criteria about project aspects I must say.

I'm also amazed how much criteria was defined to evaluate project's 
software quality, which is zero!


What about performance? OS compatibility? Dependencies? usability? 
UI/UX? Code tests? problem solving features? deprecated 
code/tecnologies? Etc...
I could elaborate a list of dozens of itens that could really measure 
what is the fundamental: project's software.


I thought that here at OSGeo you deal with geographic open source 
SOFTWARE solutions but now I see that I'm wrong. The content that you 
provide tells nothing about software qualities and facts, which are 
the ultimate criteria, even more considering for production status!


Sorry to bother... :)

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 22:57, "Cameron Shorter" > escreveu:


Hi Marco,
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist [1],
which is quite clear in the definition of a graduated OSGeo project.
(It is option 1 by your definition below).

[1]
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html




On 16/05/2016 3:45 am, Marco Afonso wrote:


Hi all,

Could some answer what is the % of the ponderation weight of
software quality and the % of the  ponderation weight of the
project organization in incubation decision?

The first criteria is technologicaly measureable.
The second is not.

Your evaluation method open the following possibilities:

1. Never accept a new project with high quality software but a
lower evaluation of the project comunity.

2. Accept low quality of software with high project comunity.

3. Accept a project with high comunity evaluation but with old or
deprecated software.

So, to me, seems that you are giving too much weight on the
social aspect (hardly measurable) of the project, instead of
giving weight to software quality (technologicaly measurable)
which is fundamental to your criteria of being for production :)

Marco

Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" > escreveu:

Marco,

I think you have missed the point of my tales, both the
projects that I wrote about are open source (by any
definition) but only the one with an open organisation is
thriving.

OSGeo is designed to support open and sustainable development
of geospatial solutions. A benevolent dictatorship is a
fragile model of governance and so can not be acceptable to
us as a foundation.

The (perceived) quality of the software is of no importance
in this discussion if the project fails due to a lack of
community.

Ian

PS open hub notes geotools has 241 contributors if we are
measuring success in these metrics.

On 15 May 2016 14:40, "Marco Afonso" > wrote:

Hi Anita,

Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality
evaluation AND project organization evaluation.

So you can exclude an open source software with high
quality if their organization evaluation is low.

For me that seems wrong. A software on a public
repository is only limited by it's licence terms, or
unlimited at all. :)

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" > escreveu:

Hi Marco,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso
 wrote:

[OSGeo-Discuss] remove from mailing list

[Oshani Singapuliarachchi]

remove from mailing list
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] remove from mailing list

[Mateusz Loskot]

On 16 May 2016 at 10:13, oshanisinga  wrote:
> Please be kind enough to take me off the mailing list

Please, you can do it yourself here
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

At the bottom, follow "To unsubscribe from Discuss, "

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] remove from mailing list

[oshanisinga]

Please be kind enough to take me off the mailing list 


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from the Cradle

[Marc Vloemans]

Congrats Patrick!

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 16 mei 2016 om 02:48 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> I love Open Source Geospatial software!
> It helps life to live on and on and on. . .
> So in the cradle-to-cradle spirit of a sustainable world,
> WorldWind has just ‘officially’ released Android version 0.2.0
>  
> https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WorldWindAndroid/releases/
>  
> If you have an Android device, feel free to try it out!
> It’s kind of cool, great fun, and architecturally aligned with the Web 
> version.
> This makes moving from one WorldWind to the other a real breeze!
> And you can fork with it all you like!  ;-)
> -Patrick
>  
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss