re: Open Source design competition / Python / software tools
Hi, folks. I hope you don't mind another mail out of the blue, but I got notice on Saturday that the Department of Energy is giving me $860K over two years to support development of easier-to-use software engineering tools. All of the work will be Open Source, and will be done in Python, with a strong emphasis on design, testing, and documentation. The project's long-term objective is to encourage scientists and engineers to treat programs in the same way as they do other experiments, i.e. to calibrate, test, peer review, and so on. To kick-start things, we're going to be holding a two-round design competition. Anyone (individual or team, professional or student) can submit a short entry for the first round; the judges will pick four candidates to go forward in each of four categories, and those individuals or teams will be asked to submit full entries. The four categories are: * an issue tracking system to replace Gnats and Bugzilla; * a build system to replace make; * a platform inspection and configuration system to replace autoconf; and * a testing framework to replace XUnit, Expect, and DejaGnu. Would you be interested in participating in any way---judging, entering a design, critiquing things from the pointer of view of end users, or anything else? I realize that you're probably up past your eyeballs with work, and that the money on offer is nothing special, but I think this could be a lot of fun, and could help to shift the emphasis of the Open Source community from hacking to design (both by drawing attention to, and rewarding, design, and by creating a corpus of examples and commentary for programmers to refer to). It could also make life a lot easier for computational scientists and engineers... Please let me know if you'd like to be involved, or if you'd like more information than is contained in the FAQ (attached). Timescales are a bit tight---I'd like to be able to make an announcement on January 14---but I'll be reading email at this address several times a day during the holiday. I look forward to hearing from you, Greg Wilson p.s. please note that the attached FAQ is a first draft; I'd be grateful if you could show it to anyone you think might be interested, but I'd also be grateful if you wouldn't broadcast it until it's gone through one more editing pass.
gvwilson@nevex.com wrote:
Hi, folks. I hope you don't mind another mail out of the blue, but I got notice on Saturday that the Department of Energy is giving me $860K over two years to support development of easier-to-use software engineering tools. All of the work will be Open Source, and will be done in Python, with a strong emphasis on design, testing, and documentation. The project's long-term objective is to encourage scientists and engineers to treat programs in the same way as they do other experiments, i.e. to calibrate, test, peer review, and so on.
To kick-start things, we're going to be holding a two-round design competition. Anyone (individual or team, professional or student) can submit a short entry for the first round; the judges will pick four candidates to go forward in each of four categories, and those individuals or teams will be asked to submit full entries. The four categories are:
* an issue tracking system to replace Gnats and Bugzilla;
* a build system to replace make;
* a platform inspection and configuration system to replace autoconf; and
* a testing framework to replace XUnit, Expect, and DejaGnu.
Would you be interested in participating in any way
Are these categories fixed? I see a very strong need for an open-source UML modeling tool. UML is extremely powerful, but current UML tools largely suck and are very expensive. We are contemplating launching an open-source development effort to build UML modeling tools using Zope or the Zope object database as a repository. A contest like this could help to kick-start this effort, but tools to automate requirements and design seem to be missing. This is odd, considering that up-front activities like requirements and design have the largest impact on software-engineering project success. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Python Powered! Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.
Hi, everyone. I'm sending my reply to Jim's message to the whole python-dev list; I'll send follow-ups to individuals if people would prefer.
* an issue tracking system to replace Gnats and Bugzilla;
* a build system to replace make;
* a platform inspection and configuration system to replace autoconf; and
* a testing framework to replace XUnit, Expect, and DejaGnu.
Jim Fulton asked: Are these categories fixed?
For the first round, yes --- I have to prove that this model can solve small problems before I'll be given the funding to tackle larger ones, and I think that a UML modeling tool is definitely "large" :-). I also have to demonstrate uptake, and I think more people will adopt a sane replacement for Autoconf in the next 18 months than would adopt a UML modeler. However, decent Open Source CASE tools are very (very) high on my personal list --- if this works, I'd like to tackle them (along with providing support for DDD, and a few other thingsl ike that). Greg
gvwilson@nevex.com wrote:
Hi, everyone. I'm sending my reply to Jim's message to the whole python-dev list; I'll send follow-ups to individuals if people would prefer.
* an issue tracking system to replace Gnats and Bugzilla;
* a build system to replace make;
* a platform inspection and configuration system to replace autoconf; and
* a testing framework to replace XUnit, Expect, and DejaGnu.
Jim Fulton asked: Are these categories fixed?
For the first round, yes
OK.
--- I have to prove that this model can solve small problems before I'll be given the funding to tackle larger ones, and I think that a UML modeling tool is definitely "large" :-).
Well, since you gave rational ..... :) <speech> Isn't the Open Source community especially good at large problems? Note that I'm thinking more in terms of an open source UML community of tools, based around an existing repository rather than on a single monolithic tool. I envision a community of diagramming and other small tools orbiting Zope or ZODB. The hardest part of a UML tool is the repository, and I think we've mostly got that. I think that what the Open Source community desperately needs are tools for managing and sharing the most important artifacts in the development process. </speech> Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Python Powered! Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Jim Fulton wrote:
gvwilson@nevex.com wrote: ...
--- I have to prove that this model can solve small problems before I'll be given the funding to tackle larger ones, and I think that a UML modeling tool is definitely "large" :-).
Well, since you gave rational ..... :)
<speech> Isn't the Open Source community especially good at large problems?
Very true, I agree, but part of Greg's problem is "proving" that to the DoE. Somebody has said those four problems are sufficient to do so, and (probably) because they are reasonably constrained to allow completion within a specified timeframe.
Note that I'm thinking more in terms of an open source UML community of tools, based around an existing repository rather than on a single monolithic tool. I envision a community of diagramming and other small tools orbiting Zope or ZODB. The hardest part of a UML tool is the repository, and I think we've mostly got that.
Greg's proposal is quite specific. "A community" isn't, so it might not help to create a proof to the DoE (otherwise, they could look at the Zope community, or other communities!). Jim: there isn't anything stopping or impeding the creation of an Open Source community for UML modeling. This DoE competition won't affect that... Happy Holidays, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Greg Stein wrote:
(snip)
Jim: there isn't anything stopping or impeding the creation of an Open Source community for UML modeling.
Of course not.
This DoE competition won't affect that...
Perhaps it could help it.
Happy Holidays,
You too. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Python Powered! Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 gvwilson@nevex.com wrote:
To kick-start things, we're going to be holding a two-round design competition. Anyone (individual or team, professional or student) can submit a short entry for the first round; the judges will pick four candidates to go forward in each of four categories, and those individuals or teams will be asked to submit full entries. The four categories are:
* an issue tracking system to replace Gnats and Bugzilla;
Hi there. At ILM we've been using a system that i hacked up quickly in Python called "Roundup". It has a number of interesting properties that have made it really useful to us, and arguably better than any of the existing open-source bug-tracking things out there that i know of. It is not just a Web app; it lives between the Web and e-mail, because we do so much of our communication that way. For example, each request item gets its own virtual mailing list, updated on the fly without the need for explicit subscription (if you cc: somebody while discussing the bug, they get subscribed). Empirically i've discovered that unsubscription is actually unnecessary (!) because conversation will stop on a topic when it gets resolved or when it ceases to be interesting. These are fine-grained discussion lists on a per-topic level. This is just to let you know i'm interested. I'm currently asking for permission to open-source Roundup; if it can't be done, or doesn't happen quickly enough, i'll just have to take a weekend and rewrite the thing. There were a few things i wanted to fix anyway. -- ?!ng "You should either succeed gloriously or fail miserably. Just getting by is the worst thing you can do." -- Larry Smith
participants (4)
-
Greg Stein -
gvwilson＠nevex.com -
Jim Fulton -
Ka-Ping Yee