From 1a67561139015af3f1c455c5234f65a1a0069235 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: adipai Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Removed junk files --- Selfassessment.md | 53 ----------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 53 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 Selfassessment.md diff --git a/Selfassessment.md b/Selfassessment.md deleted file mode 100644 index 9b08e28a5..000000000 --- a/Selfassessment.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,53 +0,0 @@ -
- -|What | Notes|score 0..4
(0=no, 2=ok, 4=wow!)| -|-----|------|------| -|Misc | Group members attended tutorial sessions|4| -|Distrbuted dev model: | decisions made by unanmyous vote}|4| -|| group meetings had a round robin speaking order|4| -|| group meetings had a moderator that managed the round robin|4| -|| group meeting moderator rotated among the group|4| -|| code conforms to some packaging standard|4| -|| code has can be downloaded from some standard package manager|4| -| |workload is spread over the whole team (one team member is often Xtimes more productive than the others... but nevertheless, here is a track record that everyone is contributing a lot)|4| -|| Number of commits|4| -|| Number of commits: by different people|4| -|| Issues reports: there are many|4| -|| issues are being closed|4| -|| License: exists|4| -|| DOI badge: exists |4| -||Docs: doco generated , format not ugly |4| -||Docs: what: point descriptions of each class/function (in isolation) |4| -||Docs: how: for common use cases X,Y,Z mini-tutorials showing worked examples on how to do X,Y,Z|4| -||Docs: why: docs tell a story, motivate the whole thing, deliver a punchline that makes you want to rush out and use the thing|4| -||Docs: 3 minute video, posted to YouTube. That convinces people why they want to work on your code.|4| -|| (hard) code conforms to some known patterns |4| -|Tools Matter| Use of version control tools|4| -|| Extensive use of version control tools |4| -|| Repo has an up-to-date requirements.txt file|4| -|| Repo does not have "ignore" files.|4| -||Use of style checkers |4| -||Extensive Use of style checkers |4| -|| Use of code formatters. |4| -|| Extensive Use of code formatters. |4| -|| Use of syntax checkers. |4| -|| Extensive use of syntax checkers. |4| -|| Use of code coverage |4| -|| Extensive use of code coverage |4| -|| other automated analysis tools|4| -|| Extensive use of other automated analysis tools|4| -|| test cases exist|4| -|| test cases are routinely executed|4| -| consensus-oriented model| the files CONTRIBUTING.md and CODEOFCONDUCT.md has have multiple edits by multiple people|4| -| | the files CONTRIBUTING.md lists coding standards and lots of tips on how to extend the system without screwing things up|4| -| | multiple people contribute to discussions|4| -|| issues are discussed before they are closed|4| -|| Chat channel: exists|4| -|| Chat channel: is active |4| -|| test cases:.a large proportion of the issues related to handling failing cases.|4| -| zero internal boundaries | evidence that the whole team is using the same tools: everyone can get to all tools and files|4| -| | evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. config files in the repo, updated by lots of different people)|4| -| | evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. tutor can ask anyone to share screen, they demonstrate the system running on their computer)|4| -| | evidence that the members of the team are working across multiple places in the code base|4| -| low-regressions rule | (hard to judge) features released are not subsequently removed|4| -|short release cycles | (hard to see in short projects) project members are committing often enough so that everyone can get your work|4|