----- Mensaje original ----- De: Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> Fecha: Viernes, Octubre 20, 2006 7:01 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [Summer of Code] An overview of Boost participation inGSoC 2006 Para: boost@lists.boost.org
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
Conduct student-mentor exclusively through public channels
This would also be great. While our mentors have been very helpful, more comments on our problems would have been useful. I would mandate> that all *technical* communications should be public.
I have to say I think this is not at all a good idea.
In development of a "speculative" idea, there are lots of failed experiments. Doing this in public would only consume lots of time and distract from job at hand.
I think a better approach would be for software developers (us included) to keep a log of what we've been doing. This would include a record of the failed approaches that had been tried and discarded. This would eventually form the basis of the "rationale" and be very handy when a project is submited for review (formal or otherwise).
Personally, I think the idea of software development as a collaborative activity is overrated. I see it as more personal. Of course criticism (constructive and otherwise) is a public activity. So I think those public dissicussions which speculate on how libraries should be designed and what they should include and not include are much less valuable than those discussions which revolve around a specific example of the implementation of an idea. The former is sort of more fun, and the later can be more difficult and painful - but I think its ultimately more productive.
Maintain code, docs and tests in parallel
I'm guilty of not doing this, so yes, mentors should *require*
Hello Robert, In some sense I agree with you that nothing beats a dedicated mind with focus, time and lack of pressure to produce solid designs upon which others can later build up, discuss etc. But this scenario is different in that it's a student who's doing the work, and the whole thing is supposed to be mentored and validated by the organization. Some guidance is expected and indeed (IMHO) needed, so what the rule about pulic communication tries to fight against is the (possibly natural) tendency of students to try and do all the work on their own without giving the community the possibility to assess the progress and orientation of the project. [...] their
students to have docs and test up to date.
I think that the projects are really in the early stages of developmentrather than being refined for "release". So I think its pre-mature to insist upon this level of formality.
Indeed, by the deadline of GSoC no project could be said to be ready for formal review. What's asked is that students plan their work carefully so as to arrive to that deadline having advanced reasonably along the three dimensions (code, tests, docs). I know of at least one project where the code was fairly complete but contained no docs at all by the end of GSoC. This should have been detected and remedied during the program.
Robert Ramey
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo