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.
> Requirem
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 suppo
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. Unli
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 Cr
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
===
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 self-containe
Hi David!
On 21.07.17 11:43, Bernd Machenschalk wrote:
Master is unstable in both models; releases are done from stable
branches.
This might be one of the fundamental (pun intended) misunderstandings
here. It is the opposite of everything I ever heard or read, and I think
I know why:
How
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 havin
Hi All,
I can see (good) arguments both ways - though now that the pace of
development is slowing, and the number of projects growing/projected
to grow, I would tend to err on the side of the 'stable' master-branch
model.
As regards a testing method, I could maybe suggest there is a specific
