[Insight-developers] Procedure for contributing new classes

[Julien Jomier]

Dan, Gaetan,

I agree with Gaetan than a one page write up for the IJ is easy enough 
and also gives publicity to the new classes. As the toolkit grows it 
becomes difficult to know what's there (and not already there).

We used to have a page in the Insight Journal that was showing all the 
publications that have not been moved in the toolkit yet. We need to put 
this page back up again, this will really help deciding which classes 
should be moved in the review directory. In the meantime, we probably 
should create a list on wiki of classes that should be moved. I'll be 
happy to help moving some of the classes.

Julien

Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> 
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> 
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> 
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers