Cytoscape Wiki|
Size: 1399
Comment:
|
Size: 2206
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release." RFCs represent one possible mechanism for soliciting feedback for core features / refactoring. For details on RFCs in general, check out the [http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Request+for+Comments&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Request%20for%20Comments Wikipedia Entry: Request for Comments (RFCs)] |
This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release." RFC 2 is divided in two parts: * Part I consists of Ethan's interviews with six Cytoscapers (Trey, Gary, Ben, Allan, Aditya, and Rowan). I had hoped to interview more people before the Cytoscape retreat, but unfortunately didn't have time to get to everybody. In Part I, I have done my best to paraphrase people's comments, and I have not indicidated who said what. * Part II consists of ideas which were culled from Ethan's interviews, and are now presented as concrete proposals to the larger group. |
| Line 7: | Line 12: |
| '''On 10/13/2005, the Cytoscape Developers group unanimously voted to accept {{{CyAttributes}}} into the Cytoscape core. Work on implementation has begun, and the RFC is now officially __closed to public comment__. You can still add comments, but we can't guarantee that those comments will be accepted into the API until our next Cytoscape release.''' | This document is under construction. |
| Line 9: | Line 14: |
| === How to Comment === | == Part I: The Interviews == |
| Line 11: | Line 16: |
| To view/add comments, click on any of 'Comment' links below. By adding your ideas to the Wiki directly, we can more easily organize everyone's ideas, and keep clear records. Be sure to include today's date and your name for each comment. Here is an example to get things started: ["/RFC1 Comment Name"]. | === Q1: What do you feel about the quality of the 2.2 release? === |
| Line 13: | Line 18: |
| '''Try to keep your comments as concrete and constructive as possible. For example, if you find a part of the API makes no sense, please say so, but don't stop there. Take the extra step and propose alternatives.''' |
==== Cytosaper #1: ==== * We pushed the release date out too much. We should have coordinated our efforts much earlier; we probably could have done something by August. We could have done a much better job if we had coordinated earlier on. I think this compromised the quality of the chosen feature set. * Next time, we need to decide the feature set straight away. Then, do design and implementation in the next 2-3 months, so that we can do a real six month release cycle. * Feature set was based on developer interests, not really based on user's feedback. We need a better mechanism to get more feedback from real users. ==== Cytoscaper #2: ==== * I think we chose the right set of features. For example, we chose a set of features that go well together, e.g. the new attribute browse goes well with the {{{CytoPanel}}} API. Plus, the editor fits in. Metanodes could have been in there too, and that would have been nice. * Timeliness could have been better. Quality could have been better. * That said, there are always trade-offs. In the tradeoff between: {{{GraphObjAttributes}}} v. {{{CytoscapeData}}} v. {{{CyAttributes}}}, I think we made the right decision. If we have had put Cytoscape 2.2 out the door a month ago without {{{CyAttributes}}}, it would have been a lot buggier. == Part II: The Recommendations == Under Construction |
About this Document
This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release."
RFC 2 is divided in two parts:
- Part I consists of Ethan's interviews with six Cytoscapers (Trey, Gary, Ben, Allan, Aditya, and Rowan). I had hoped to interview more people before the Cytoscape retreat, but unfortunately didn't have time to get to everybody. In Part I, I have done my best to paraphrase people's comments, and I have not indicidated who said what.
- Part II consists of ideas which were culled from Ethan's interviews, and are now presented as concrete proposals to the larger group.
Status
This document is under construction.
Part I: The Interviews
Q1: What do you feel about the quality of the 2.2 release?
Cytosaper #1:
- We pushed the release date out too much. We should have coordinated our efforts much earlier; we probably could have done something by August. We could have done a much better job if we had coordinated earlier on. I think this compromised the quality of the chosen feature set.
- Next time, we need to decide the feature set straight away. Then, do design and implementation in the next 2-3 months, so that we can do a real six month release cycle.
- Feature set was based on developer interests, not really based on user's feedback. We need a better mechanism to get more feedback from real users.
Cytoscaper #2:
I think we chose the right set of features. For example, we chose a set of features that go well together, e.g. the new attribute browse goes well with the CytoPanel API. Plus, the editor fits in. Metanodes could have been in there too, and that would have been nice.
- Timeliness could have been better. Quality could have been better.
That said, there are always trade-offs. In the tradeoff between: GraphObjAttributes v. CytoscapeData v. CyAttributes, I think we made the right decision. If we have had put Cytoscape 2.2 out the door a month ago without CyAttributes, it would have been a lot buggier.
Part II: The Recommendations
Under Construction