Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Hi David, On 22/07/17 10:13 , David Anderson wrote: > On 7/21/2017 1:26 AM, David Wallom wrote: >> the responsibility for functions to different community groups. As >> such it will be essential that we move to a multi branch development >> methodology in some form of public repository. I use

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 22.07.17 10:13, David Anderson wrote: > > On 7/21/2017 1:26 AM, David Wallom wrote: >> the responsibility for functions to different community groups. As >> such it will be essential that we move to a multi branch development >> methodology in some form of public repository. I use this in a

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 21.07.2017 06:21, David Anderson wrote: > Stable branches for server and API: yes. > (prerequisite to this is a way of thoroughly testing these components, > which we don't currently have. > How about if people start discussing this?) I don't see having thorough tests as a prerequisite to

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Hi David! On 2017-07-21 00:50, David Anderson wrote: This discussion comes down to two contrasting models for software development: 1) The "waterfall model": ... 2) The "agile model": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development New features are divided into smaller

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Indeed we have drifted from the original keywords discussion already ( David -- === Professor David Wallom Associate Professor Oxford eResearch Centre University of Oxford 7 Keble Road Oxford OX1 3QG UK Tel: 01865 610601

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 21/07/17 10:26 , David Wallom wrote: > Another thing I would like to introduce (at risk of a large back lash > ;) is the type of open source license currently used for BOINC. Please let's use a different thread and/or the workshop to discuss this. Thanks :-) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Hi, If we are to build a much larger community of developers from within the current larger users of BOINC then we are going to have to adopt best practice processes for collaborative software development. As such this for example is one of the things that the Workshop 2017 is to focus on.

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Don't know how much it is worth, but as a part-time contributor to _many_ Open Source projects (and once having worked with a computer science degree as a software engineer for a software company that does software environments for software development) I would like to express my wholehearted

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Hi David, On 21/07/17 0:50 , David Anderson wrote: > This discussion comes down to two contrasting models for software > development: Sorry, no, that's not the point. > 1) The "waterfall model": > 2) The "agile model": I know both models very well, professionally and scientifically. >

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 7/20/2017 2:11 AM, Oliver Bock wrote: just meant to improve things - to make BOINC better. For instance, I for one just can't take over a responsible (!) role as release manager for, say, Android unless there's a codebase and a workflow I can trust. If As you know, client releases

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

This discussion comes down to two contrasting models for software development: 1) The "waterfall model": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model New features are done as a unit, with sequential phases (requirements, design, implementation, verification, maintenance). E.g., requirements and

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

I think this sort of discussion is exactly what I was thinking of when I asked in my initial working group paper (Christian, please copy to Bernd and Oliver, and explain the background - if you haven't already), when I asked something like: What is the current status of BOINC? Is it a computer

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 20/07/17 11:11 , Oliver Bock wrote: > If you don't adapt and progress it > can only get worse, in particular from the point of view of newly > interested scientists and contributors. Just in case this came across in an offending way: the "you" wasn't meant personally, it was meant as in "one"

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Just so we are all on the same page about what issue is discussed here and how an "integration branch" can solve this. A project wants to use a version of the BOINC code that is known to be stable (because usually you choose a released version of a software to use) The BOINC server part has no

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 20/07/17 12:06 , David Anderson wrote: > As far as I can tell, none of the issues you mention have anything to do > with whether > we call master a "development branch" or an "integration branch". I know. That's why I keep trying to address that. > You seem to think that people who don't buy

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Bernd Machenschalk < bernd.machensch...@aei.mpg.de> wrote: > Rosetta's is way older (2009?) > Correction: Rosetta updated their hardware and BOINC version to 'the latest' on 23 June 2017 (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/) (

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 2017-07-20 10:09, David Anderson wrote: On 7/20/2017 12:37 AM, Oliver Bock wrote: Sorry, but this isn't a sustainable model. Well, it's sustained us this far. I'm not so sure about that, at least if "us" should cover more than SETI. Most major projects that I know of use BOINC server

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

As far as I can tell, none of the issues you mention have anything to do with whether we call master a "development branch" or an "integration branch". You seem to think that people who don't buy into your world view are resistant to change. Not the case. If we had more energy going to

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 7/20/2017 12:37 AM, Oliver Bock wrote: Sorry, but this isn't a sustainable model. Well, it's sustained us this far. We could have a server stable branch, as you've suggested, if we could figure out how to test the server software. ___ boinc_dev

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Hi David, On 20/07/17 9:11 , David Anderson wrote: > Master is for new development. Sorry, but this isn't a sustainable model. Since only the client uses release branches *all* other components (e.g. the server!) depend on master being "usable". Therefore master should always be as stable as

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 7/19/2017 2:57 AM, Christian Beer wrote: understand that some exploratory implementation should be done in the meantime and I'm fine with that. But this should be happening in a separate branch NOT in the master branch which is currently used to build a 7.8 release. The 7.8 client release

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 19.07.17 12:24, Oliver Bock wrote: > Other than that I'm fully in line with your proposal as it reflects what > I've already proposed here: > > https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/1874 Given the existence of that issue all further (related) discussion would ideally be continued over there.

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

On 19/07/17 11:57 , Christian Beer wrote: > - if there is consensus that the feature is useful to BOINC in general > and known to be stable enough, the developer creates a pull request to > merge the feature into the master branch > - if the feature involves client changes, a new client version

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

It was pointed out to me that my criticism may not be specific enough. I am not against this proposal in general but three days over a weekend is not enough time to read and comment on a complex design proposal. I understand that some exploratory implementation should be done in the meantime and

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Richard: Thanks for the comments. In the current framework, keywords have "symbols" as well as integer IDs: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/keywords.php?header=c https://boinc.berkeley.edu/keywords.php?header=python This makes it easy to specify them e.g. in job-submission programs. I think it's

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

Details of the project I described are no longer available on the web, but they can be explored here: https://web.archive.org/web/19961221214555/http://www.funderfinder.org.uk/ On Monday, 17 July 2017, 11:44, Richard Haselgrove wrote: That intervention

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

That intervention has prompted me to look more closely at the 'Job and Project Keywords' design document. It reminds me very much of a project I was involved in between 1990 and about 2005. I was the sole coder on the team, but the philosophy and design were led by a project leader above me.

Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_projects] keywords

I just want to voice my disagreement with the process in which this proposal was handled. There was barely time to comment and so far no one did but implementation into the master branch has already started for what seems to be a major change to Client and Server code. As a volunteer contributor