+1 for me. Having a centralized way of managing data submission would simplify things a lot for people collecting data, but also for users who could check in one place all the kind of data they send.
Tommaso On 28/04/15 14:31, Andrei Chis wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:42, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected] > <mailto:[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 > > >
