[Insight-developers] Procedure for contributing new classes

[Gaëtan Lehmann]

Hi Dan,

Le 20 févr. 09 à 13:44, Dan Mueller a écrit :

> Hi Insight Developers,
>
> I have a question regarding the procedure for contributing new classes
> and algorithms to ITK.
>
> Of late it seems there has been a number of additions directly to the
> Code/Review/ folder, bypassing the procedure listed here:
>    http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Procedure_for_Contributing_New_Classes_and_Algorithms
>
> (Perhaps my perception of the matter is wrong, in which case I'd be
> happy to be corrected).

Several contributions have been moved to the Review directory without  
reaching the required 3 reviews, simply because there is not enough  
reviews.
I didn't checked, but I don't think that any new classes has been  
added to Review directory without passing through the IJ.

>
> As a developer I can definitely see the advantages of directly
> submitting code to Code/Review: it is so much faster and easier. I
> have nearly a dozen little filters which I have been meaning to submit
> to the IJ (local maxima, local minima,

I also have these ones :-)
http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr/darcs/contrib-itk/localExtrema/

> scale/shift, vector
> shift/scale, cosine/hamming/lanczos/welch windowed since interpolate,
> power image filter

and maybe also this one!
http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr/darcs/contrib-itk/pow/
There must be an interest for this kind of stuff ;-)

> , joint histogram), but have unfortunately never
> found the time. Other developers have found the time, yet these
> filters seem to languish there, in some cases for years, eg.
>    http://www.insight-journal.org/browse/publication/142
>

This is one of the contributions I wanted to put in the Review  
directory. I postponed that after the next release, because it  
contains several filters, and we may be a little too close of the  
release. It will be done soon though.

> Despite the perceived ease of directly submitting to Code/Review,
> obviously this diminishes the advantages listed here:
>    http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Procedure_for_Contributing_New_Classes_and_Algorithms#The_Rationale
>
> My question: is there some way to strike a middle ground? Can
> "trivial" filters can be added directly to Code/Review/ after passing
> say a peer review via email, or something similar? Or perhaps there is
> an existing procedure for adding "trivial" filters to Code/Reivew/
> which I am unaware...?
>

We are already moving some contributions without review to the Review  
directory. By the way, I realize that a developer shouldn't move one  
of his contribution without review by himself. Moving the code is  
actually a great opportunity to review the code.

But I'm not sure we should integrate some new classes without passing  
through the IJ, as it was done before. Making a small note of one page  
is enough for the simplest contribution to the IJ. With a good  
template, it doesn't take so much time and it gives the opportunity to  
everyone to make a review. It also expose the contribution in a well  
known place, so it is usable anyway.

> Of course, I am willing to help out whenever I can. I intend to submit
> more IJ reviews and act as a shepherd for papers (although for me the
> 3.0.12 release clashes with this year's MICCAI deadline).


I think that moving the code from the IJ to the Review directory is  
not constrained by the release schedule (http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_Schedule#Release_3.12_Schedule 
). I guess that most of us are doing that on our spare/free time, and  
that most of us don't choose when they have spare time. I always  
received a positive a positive reply when I asked to move some code to  
ITK cvs outside the schedule - generally just after a release.

Gaëtan


-- 
Gaëtan Lehmann
Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr  http://www.mandriva.org
http://www.itk.org  http://www.clavier-dvorak.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une signature ?lectronique PGP
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090220/b8287813/attachment.pgp>