SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

The Contribution Process

October 3rd, 2011, 8:56 pm

outrun, please try to fix the English spelling and English grammar! :-)BTW, you can just link to the OSI (URL provided in the neighboring thread) when you mention BSL-1.0, to avoid ambiguity, etc.
Last edited by Polter on October 2nd, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

The Contribution Process

October 3rd, 2011, 9:31 pm

outrun, sure! I can also provide you with a list of (some of) the remaining ones, would PM you but I don't think you've made that option available; shall I post here or on another thread (which one)?
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

The Contribution Process

October 3rd, 2011, 10:11 pm

OK, here goes:"Qfcodelib" vs "QFCodeLib" -- we should probably decide on a uniform naming convention and stick to it. Perhaps QFCL as an abbreviation is an option.Similarly, a uniform capitalization convention for sections, subsections, etc. would look more pro ;-) // is there a way for the Wiki engine to do it automatically, like in LaTeX?In the following, s/foo/bar means substitute (find and replace) "foo" with "bar"s/write a bug reports if you find one/write a bug report if you find one s/"are interest in a library on topic XYZ?"/"is there an interest in a library doing XYZ?" or perhaps shorter "is there an interest in XYZ" or even shorter (although informal) "any interest in XYZ?"s/The license must meet the boost "BSL-1.0" license./The license must be Boost Software License 1.0 (BSL-1.0).s/If there is interest -and no conflict with the requirements-, you/If there is interest -- and no conflict with the requirements -- yous/and you think that's/and you think its (NOT "it's"!)s/Write a bug reports/Write a bug reports/Checking requirements/Verifying Requirements (capitalization, word choice)s/Developing A Draft/Developing a Drafts/Requesting A Review/Requesting a Review
Last edited by Polter on October 3rd, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
semanticum
Posts: 100
Joined: March 28th, 2007, 8:01 am

The Contribution Process

October 4th, 2011, 6:06 am

Regarding the section "How to Contribute?":I suggest to add "Write tests" - Or do we accept contributed code only if it is covered with unit tests?
 
User avatar
semanticum
Posts: 100
Joined: March 28th, 2007, 8:01 am

The Contribution Process

October 4th, 2011, 7:02 am

Proposal to add "Testing" to the contribution process:Contributed code needs to be delivered with tests written by the author. It is up to the developer what tools he or she is using for testingThe review for acceptance into production by the reviewers (the community) will check if the testing part is covered by the authorWe have to implement a unit testing framework to prevent the production code from being broken. Suggestion: Boost Test LibraryOther ideas or opinions here? Dominik
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

The Contribution Process

October 4th, 2011, 9:45 am

outrun, awesome! Will have to remember to throw some vexing expressions at you to parse I'm also fine with QFCL, in fact, that's how I was planning on referring to the library for short anyway (YAQL was an alternative that occurred to me, but perhaps that's a bit too playful).We might want to introduce the full name on the wiki, the first time we mention the abbreviation, perhaps in the "How to Contribute" section, s/QFCL depends/Quantitative Finance Code Library Project (QFCL) depends ?Incidentally, this -- http://www.wilmottwiki.com/wiki/index.p ... Contribute -- is 404, but shouldn't it work instead of the URL with "Qfcl"?By the way (regarding semanticum's question) -- I should probably just repeat this in this thread:To the extent that we can (which remains an open question), I'd be inclined to adopt the Boost Library Requirements and Guidelines pretty much verbatim (substituting the library name for "Boost" where applicable). Well, with possible exceptions, like "Aim first for clarity and correctness; optimization should be only a secondary concern in most Boost libraries." -- while correctness is fundamental and obviously has to overrule anything else, I'd be open to sacrifice clarity (which is a subjective quality) a little bit if significant optimization opportunities are present (e.g., parametric polymorphism & CRTP might be less "clear" to some than inclusion polymorphism & virtual member functions, but I wouldn't rule it out if its benefits would outweigh its costs in a given case).That includes all the pages under "Development" -- http://www.boost.org/development/index.html -- including "Testing" and "Boost Library Requirements and Guidelines" (including "Documentation").For reference:http://www.boost.org/development/testin ... umentation
 
User avatar
Etuka
Posts: 319
Joined: January 1st, 2002, 7:40 pm

The Contribution Process

October 4th, 2011, 1:08 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Polters/and you think that's/and you think its (NOT "it's"!)I'm afraid it's it's. Its is possessive...
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On