Differences between revisions 3 and 4
⇤ ← Revision 3 as of 2007-04-24 14:08:25 →
Size: 1817
Editor: AlexisOConnor
Comment: Added some (minus) points to the main exercise section.
← Revision 4 as of 2007-04-24 14:30:35 → ⇥
Size: 2422
Editor: AlexisOConnor
Comment: Added more plus and minus points to the main exercise section.
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 15: Line 15:
 * Having an RSS feed from your blog is a great feature to enable interested parties to keep up with your posts. Again, by using a well-known blogging service (see above point) you will almost undoubtedly great this for free.  * Having an RSS feed from your blog is a great feature to enable interested parties to keep up with your posts. Again, by using a well-known blogging service (see above point) you will almost undoubtedly get this for free.
Line 21: Line 21:
 * Software works "out-of-the-box"! Compiles and runs from a CVS check-out. It is true that this reviewer [AO'C] has had some familiarity with building [http://www.reload.ac.uk Reload] before (for which this project is a plug-in) and a superficial understanding of Eclipse plugins, but it goes to show that if you write against a standard framework ([http://www.reload.ac.uk/ Reload] / [http://eclipse.org/ Eclipse]) you can "get away" without having any documentation ;-) .
Line 24: Line 25:
 * License is probably in the wrong place - should probably be placed at the top of the file ''above'' the `package` declaration.

Frockle/PeerReview

Introduction

The peer review exercise includes a physical meeting at [http://www.bolton.ac.uk/university/aboutus/maps.html Bolton University] on 25th April, but entails some preliminary work beforehand. This year, rather than perform the exercise in mutually reviewing pairs, it is actually a triangular round-robin where each team reviews the work of another, within a triplet. We are reviewing the work of [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_framework/demo_designshare.html DesignShare]. In turn, we are being reviewed by [http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/projects/resourcebrowser/ ResourceBrowser].

General Observations

Whilst the peer-review exercise entails reviewing one project in particular, there were a few general points I thought were worth making when I was bookmarking sites the other day.

Blogs

  • If the institution hosts a blogging service then it is great to use this, as you (often) get the benefit of institutional branding.

  • It is easy to create a blog using a third-party hosting service, see [https://www2.blogger.com/start Blogger], [http://wordpress.com/ Wordpress], [http://www.typepad.com/ Typepad], etc. Many support the notion of having more than one author (e.g. [https://www2.blogger.com/start Blogger]).

  • Having an RSS feed from your blog is a great feature to enable interested parties to keep up with your posts. Again, by using a well-known blogging service (see above point) you will almost undoubtedly get this for free.

Main Exercise: DesignShare

Pluses

  • Software works "out-of-the-box"! Compiles and runs from a CVS check-out. It is true that this reviewer [AO'C] has had some familiarity with building [http://www.reload.ac.uk Reload] before (for which this project is a plug-in) and a superficial understanding of Eclipse plugins, but it goes to show that if you write against a standard framework ([http://www.reload.ac.uk/ Reload] / [http://eclipse.org/ Eclipse]) you can "get away" without having any documentation ;-) .

Minuses

  • Could not find a project blog.

  • All the CVS commit messages are blank - helpful to have a bit more information, even if it's just "Added a bit more code ..." ;-) .

  • License is probably in the wrong place - should probably be placed at the top of the file above the package declaration.

LTGPublicWiki: Frockle/PeerReview (last edited 2013-05-20 11:29:48 by localhost)