[GRASS-dev] grass-dev Digest, Vol 80, Issue 74

I agree with Helena. It is very good when working with many projects and students–and demo-ing GRASS to other organizations–to have a very complete tool set. On the other hand, it would help to have some established guidelines about what is best moved to trunk and what things might be best moved out.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, <grass-dev-request@lists.osgeo.org>
wrote:

From: Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.modis in GRASS 7 trunk

Date: October 30, 2012 1:55:36 PM MST

To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>

I agree with Glynn and Ben,
when working with students on 50+ different projects it is really great to have everything
in one package and not to worry about which additional tool to install and whether it will work with the latest release.
We used to have the code split into core, alpha and several other groups and it was pain to maintain,
I think it works much better now and the toolbox concept should be implemented at the GUI level.
Maybe PSC should have some mechanism to decide on which add-ons to move to trunk based on a defined set of criteria.

Helena

On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:

Martin Landa wrote:

as a regular user of MODIS, I would like to call other MODIS users to
express interest to include r.modis into GRASS 7 SVN.

we cannot extend number of modules in trunk forever. Probably some
modules should be reviewed and moved to addons.

Why?

Keeping modules in trunk ensures that any breakage resulting from
changes to APIs or to the build system will be noticed. Also, the
module will be included in the linkage database created by
tools/sql.sh, and in any recursive grep of the source tree.

Personally, I’d rather see most “normal” add-ons moved into trunk.

OTOH, v.in.dwg should be moved to add-ons unless LibreDWG support is
expected in the foreseeable future.


Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Would it be possible to have modules usage statistics aggregated in GRASS and periodically reported to a website for anonymous stats? Ubuntu asks you to participate in such usage survey.

It would be opt-in only, but would certainly tell GRASS community which modules are actually used most.

just a thought.
Yann

On 31 October 2012 11:16, Michael Barton <Michael.Barton@asu.edu> wrote:

I agree with Helena. It is very good when working with many projects and students–and demo-ing GRASS to other organizations–to have a very complete tool set. On the other hand, it would help to have some established guidelines about what is best moved to trunk and what things might be best moved out.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, <grass-dev-request@lists.osgeo.org>
wrote:

From: Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.modis in GRASS 7 trunk

Date: October 30, 2012 1:55:36 PM MST

To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>

I agree with Glynn and Ben,
when working with students on 50+ different projects it is really great to have everything
in one package and not to worry about which additional tool to install and whether it will work with the latest release.
We used to have the code split into core, alpha and several other groups and it was pain to maintain,
I think it works much better now and the toolbox concept should be implemented at the GUI level.
Maybe PSC should have some mechanism to decide on which add-ons to move to trunk based on a defined set of criteria.

Helena

On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:

Martin Landa wrote:

as a regular user of MODIS, I would like to call other MODIS users to
express interest to include r.modis into GRASS 7 SVN.

we cannot extend number of modules in trunk forever. Probably some
modules should be reviewed and moved to addons.

Why?

Keeping modules in trunk ensures that any breakage resulting from
changes to APIs or to the build system will be noticed. Also, the
module will be included in the linkage database created by
tools/sql.sh, and in any recursive grep of the source tree.

Personally, I’d rather see most “normal” add-ons moved into trunk.

OTOH, v.in.dwg should be moved to add-ons unless LibreDWG support is
expected in the foreseeable future.


Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Yann Chemin

A useful idea if users actually participated.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Yann Chemin <yann.chemin@gmail.com>
wrote:

Would it be possible to have modules usage statistics aggregated in GRASS and periodically reported to a website for anonymous stats? Ubuntu asks you to participate in such usage survey.

It would be opt-in only, but would certainly tell GRASS community which modules are actually used most.

just a thought.
Yann

On 31 October 2012 11:16, Michael Barton <Michael.Barton@asu.edu> wrote:

I agree with Helena. It is very good when working with many projects and students–and demo-ing GRASS to other organizations–to have a very complete tool set. On the other hand, it would help to have some established guidelines about what is best moved to trunk and what things might be best moved out.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, <grass-dev-request@lists.osgeo.org>
wrote:

From: Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.modis in GRASS 7 trunk

Date: October 30, 2012 1:55:36 PM MST

To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>

I agree with Glynn and Ben,
when working with students on 50+ different projects it is really great to have everything
in one package and not to worry about which additional tool to install and whether it will work with the latest release.
We used to have the code split into core, alpha and several other groups and it was pain to maintain,
I think it works much better now and the toolbox concept should be implemented at the GUI level.
Maybe PSC should have some mechanism to decide on which add-ons to move to trunk based on a defined set of criteria.

Helena

On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:

Martin Landa wrote:

as a regular user of MODIS, I would like to call other MODIS users to
express interest to include r.modis into GRASS 7 SVN.

we cannot extend number of modules in trunk forever. Probably some
modules should be reviewed and moved to addons.

Why?

Keeping modules in trunk ensures that any breakage resulting from
changes to APIs or to the build system will be noticed. Also, the
module will be included in the linkage database created by
tools/sql.sh, and in any recursive grep of the source tree.

Personally, I’d rather see most “normal” add-ons moved into trunk.

OTOH, v.in.dwg should be moved to add-ons unless LibreDWG support is
expected in the foreseeable future.


Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Yann Chemin

It could be proposed as a “anyone can help GRASS” on first launch of the GUI. Opt-in and weekly upload of anonymous aggregated stats will be sent to grass.osgeo.org for modules stats analysis.

grass.osgeo.org could have a weekly pigure/chart with the top 10 most used modules last week.

… strecthing the idea …

On 31 October 2012 11:29, Michael Barton <Michael.Barton@asu.edu> wrote:

A useful idea if users actually participated.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Yann Chemin <yann.chemin@gmail.com>
wrote:

Would it be possible to have modules usage statistics aggregated in GRASS and periodically reported to a website for anonymous stats? Ubuntu asks you to participate in such usage survey.

It would be opt-in only, but would certainly tell GRASS community which modules are actually used most.

just a thought.
Yann

On 31 October 2012 11:16, Michael Barton <Michael.Barton@asu.edu> wrote:

I agree with Helena. It is very good when working with many projects and students–and demo-ing GRASS to other organizations–to have a very complete tool set. On the other hand, it would help to have some established guidelines about what is best moved to trunk and what things might be best moved out.

Michael


C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)

www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:47 PM, <grass-dev-request@lists.osgeo.org>
wrote:

From: Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@ncsu.edu>

Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.modis in GRASS 7 trunk

Date: October 30, 2012 1:55:36 PM MST

To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>

I agree with Glynn and Ben,
when working with students on 50+ different projects it is really great to have everything
in one package and not to worry about which additional tool to install and whether it will work with the latest release.
We used to have the code split into core, alpha and several other groups and it was pain to maintain,
I think it works much better now and the toolbox concept should be implemented at the GUI level.
Maybe PSC should have some mechanism to decide on which add-ons to move to trunk based on a defined set of criteria.

Helena

On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:

Martin Landa wrote:

as a regular user of MODIS, I would like to call other MODIS users to
express interest to include r.modis into GRASS 7 SVN.

we cannot extend number of modules in trunk forever. Probably some
modules should be reviewed and moved to addons.

Why?

Keeping modules in trunk ensures that any breakage resulting from
changes to APIs or to the build system will be noticed. Also, the
module will be included in the linkage database created by
tools/sql.sh, and in any recursive grep of the source tree.

Personally, I’d rather see most “normal” add-ons moved into trunk.

OTOH, v.in.dwg should be moved to add-ons unless LibreDWG support is
expected in the foreseeable future.


Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Yann Chemin


Yann Chemin

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Yann Chemin <yann.chemin@gmail.com> wrote:

Would it be possible to have modules usage statistics aggregated in GRASS
and periodically reported to a website for anonymous stats?

I would repeat my suggestion to generate usage statistics in the
parser and store as ASCII file locally with GUI option (or whatever) to
send it out to the GRASS server.

Markus

On 1 November 2012 12:43, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Yann Chemin <yann.chemin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Would it be possible to have modules usage statistics aggregated in GRASS
> and periodically reported to a website for anonymous stats?

I would repeat my suggestion to generate usage statistics in the
parser and store as ASCII file locally with GUI option (or whatever) to
send it out to the GRASS server.

+1 (sorry did not read earlier thread about that)

Markus

--
Yann Chemin