CodeHosting » History » Version 1
Chris Cannam, 2010-09-20 11:55 AM
1 | 1 | Chris Cannam | h1. The code hosting problem |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
3 | 1 | Chris Cannam | h2. Assumptions found in my head |
4 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
5 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * Audio and music research groups in institutions *lack effective access to version control systems* |
6 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
7 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * This is certainly historically true of C4DM; what about other groups? |
8 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
9 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * Researchers often want to *share their code selectively* with other researchers in the same field but in other institutions |
10 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
11 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * Internal code hosting doesn't usually facilitate this |
12 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
13 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * Individual researchers may be happy to host their code in *existing public hosting services* (e.g. SourceForge, Google Code), but their supervisors are likely to be less keen |
14 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
15 | 1 | Chris Cannam | * External facilities are harder to keep track of; supervisors don't necessarily like the requirement that everything should be open source, and these facilities won't host private code |
16 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
17 | 1 | Chris Cannam | _How can we test these assumptions?_ |
18 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
19 | 1 | Chris Cannam | _If these assumptions are correct, how do we solve these problems?_ |
20 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
21 | 1 | Chris Cannam | h3. We could encourage and train institutions to provide better internal code hosting facilities |
22 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
23 | 1 | Chris Cannam | For example, by providing nice recipes, templates, support etc for setting up well-featured, friendly services. |
24 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
25 | 1 | Chris Cannam | This is certainly likely to improve code development practice in an institution that has no facility at present. But it doesn't really solve the "selective sharing" problem, or help very much with the desire to move toward publication of software and reproduceable research -- unless we can also convince people to make their own internal hosting facility a public one. |
26 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
27 | 1 | Chris Cannam | Audio and music research groups typically are too small to be successfully providing their own facilities. To do this well, they really need a horizontal approach -- facilities provided to all research areas by a common CS or IT service. Some institutions (how many? which?) will have this already |
28 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
29 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
30 | 1 | Chris Cannam | _and/or_ |
31 | 1 | Chris Cannam | # Encourage institutions to make better use of existing external open-source code hosting facilities |
32 | 1 | Chris Cannam | _and/or_ |
33 | 1 | Chris Cannam | # Provide a middle ground, our own hosting facility that institutions can treat as internal (private projects, easily tracked, etc) but can use for public hosting when they feel able |
34 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
35 | 1 | Chris Cannam | How could we do each of these? |
36 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
37 | 1 | Chris Cannam | # Educate decision-makers and about the advantages of open publication, |
38 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
39 | 1 | Chris Cannam | Advantages and disadvantages of each: |
40 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
41 | 1 | Chris Cannam | # Takes advantage of free existing facilities, no outlay; *but* |