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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> 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 > > >
