Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 12 months ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to think about a service that will give you a score for any git repository in GitHub/Gitlab to let you understand better the considerations you need to take in order to use any open-source code. Basically, there are a lot of philosophic debates about why this repo is better than the other, of course beyond the obvious metrics that you see on the repo page. It looks like something everyone in our field would love to have, so, I thought I will find several tools that do this, but, actually, I didn't find any that take all the available properties and put them in an equation and output number. So, those are the properties I thought that would be relevant:
Contributors strength
Tech stack adoption
Overall popularity
Contribution
Commits
Branches
Active discussions
Community
Stars
Forks
Watch
Security
Status of third-party dependencies
Static code analysis grade
Time spent
Activity intervals
Test coverage
Issues
Pull requests
Releases
Sponsors
Bakers
Twitter sentiment
License
I saw some works in this field, like:
Scoring Popularity in GitHub
Do you familiar with such a tool, or, want to build something like that? I would like to hear.
This is mostly opinion-based, and isn't strictly a question about programming, so it isn't really fit for Stack Overflow (How do I ask a good question?), but I think the Core Infrastructure Initiative Best Practices Program from the Linux Foundation is worth mentioning.
It doesn't scan a repository, but project maintainers can self-certify that the project meets a variety of scenarios that are part of passing, silver, or gold criteria:
Having a detailed description of the project and how to use it (passing)
Explaining how others can contribute to the project (passing)
The projects license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) (passing)
Must clearly define the project's governance model (silver)
Must have a documented roadmap (silver)
There must be smaller tasks identified that and new or casual contributor could complete (gold)
Must have had a security review within the last 5 years (gold)
Here's an example for one of my projects that has a "passing" level: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/2840
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
What project management solution can you use for grouping together related commits? Lets say you have a few hunderd modules and you need to make changes which affect 5 or 10 of these. Is there a solution that lets you open a ticket and track your subversion commits while keeping a group of people in the loop?
This would depend on the size of your team.
A small team can settle for just using GIT/SVN (or any CVS really) and make sure that everyone pulls/fetches from the integration branch frequently as a habit. If needed, use email to inform everyone about code changes or do scheduled commits to integration branch. This way, instead of letting people know that you did a commit, you can tell people when to expect a commit.
If we are talking about a big team/s, Project Management tools like JIRA should have the flexibility to send an email to a watchlist once a task is done (effectively, a code was pushed) and provide other information about the finished task (such as Affected versions/modules)
Actually, there are different ways to answer your questions depending on the need and workflow of the team but hopefully I've provided some ideas for you here.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing documentation for a GitHub project and wondering where should I write it to. There seems to be three options: GitHub Pages, GitHub Wiki or a set of Markdown files in the repository (e.g. under docs/ directory) similar to the README.md. Understandably I don't want to write the same documentation to multiple places so I have to pick one.
So what are the differences, pros and cons between the options? Any experience or thoughts about using them especially for project documentation? Also is there other options in addition to the three?
that is a very good question which I personally decide on a change-frequency and number-of-contributors basis.
As an example: in one of our projects (a c++ library) we create a HTML documentation with doxygen once in a while (e.g. while updating the master release branch). That's a perfect match for quasi-static gh-pages. In addition you get a sub domain for it http://<user>.github.io/<project>/ and you can register your own domains on top of it.
An other project contains developer and user documentation (a C++ program). I personally prefer to provide a main workflow for developers in .md files to keep them consistent with the mainline development. Changes will be reviewed by pull requests first.
But for user documentation we choose the build-in wiki since it is very easy to edit and modify - one can even allow modifications by non-members of a team.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a Mercurial hosting which is free. (I'm only a student right now.) And it seems like it boils down to Bitbucket or Project Hosting on Google Code. (Other suggestions are welcome.)
So, how do these services compare in terms of features and service?
Update: Kiln is also a strong contender (I use it myself) and I thought I felt I should mention the name in the question. In terms of features, the strong integration with something strong as FogBugz could be a major plus.
Your choice basically comes down to whether you want it to be private or not.
If you want it open to the world you can't go wrong with either.
However, if you want it to be private you should go with bitbucket. Even then you are limited to 2 users in a free private repo.
My guess is you want it to be private and free (since you're a student) so your only other option there is to host it yourself. This would be a great option if you can pull it off. Remember, you don't need to have it hosted on a server to share and merge, there are plenty of commands for sharing patch sets through email.
Kiln http://www.fogcreek.com/Kiln/StudentAndStartup.html is another option you can get for free since you are student. Run by Joel Spolsky's company I believe.
JavaForge is another option to consider if you are looking for free Mercurial hosting. You can have private projects and it has all the features mentioned before. Even better, it supports Git, SVN and CVS (even mixing them within the same project) if you want to freely experiment with (D)VCS.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
My shop is trying to formalize the release management process for an OSS product we maintain (edit: using SVN for version control). It's a sort of a web development framework/CMS kind of thing, as in it's a product that other projects are built on top of. This makes clear communication about the versioning system especially critical for developers that are using the tool.
I'm hoping to find some examples of how best to graph this system so we can communicate it better internally and with outside developers. I know there are lots of standards and best practices around versioning, so I'm hoping this extends to some sort of visual vocabulary as well. As one example, there is a nifty graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning#Software_Versioning_schemes. Are there any guides out there on how these sorts of things should be designed?
First, if it is an OSS project, chances are the versioning system ism a Distributed one (DVCS)
If so, then this branching model can be of interest.
The idea is to control what you want to integrate from remote repos.
alt text http://nvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Screen-shot-2009-12-24-at-11.32.03.png
I need this too. The built-in graph in Tortoise SVN is too busy, but I've made use of it. But for soemthing like VonC's picture above, I think I'm going to go with a dry erase board and colored markers. I'll hang it outside my cube. Annotate it with revs, dates, sprints and projects, and we'll be all set.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for alternatives to view my source code repository and run metrics on it.
Have you looked at Review Board? It's an open source tool that is used on google code and is picking up some steam in general. I ended up not using it for my particular project because it didn't provide a user-friendly way to do post-commit reviews. I imagine the web interface has improved dramatically since I evaluated it last year.
If Review Board doesn't match your requirements, consider posting more detail on what your looking for so we can have a better chance of pointing you in the right direction
You should checkout ZebraPlan.
From my experience, ZebraPlan is a much better and easier alternative to Atlassian Fisheye and Crucible. ZebraPlan has a built-in code review feature that allows you to easily connect to your source code repository. Keep in mind that you can’t validate code with Fisheye, but you can with ZebraPlan. You will definitely save time and money using ZebraPlan. Fisheye charges $800/month for 10 users and unlimited repos and ZebraPlan charges $43/month for 10 users and unlimited repos.
Here’s a short video that showcases ZebraPlan’s “Code Review” feature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gxg_d-5vuw
I hope this helps!