Difference between revisions of "Summer of Code/Application/2013"

We have participated in the GSoC program for five years running, in 2007-2012.

We have participated in the GSoC program for five years running, in 2007-2012.

In 2012, 5 team members mentored 4 students. Each mentor was also the co-mentor of another task, so the backup mentoring was still working well. 3 students passed, and one failed at mid-term. One student is still contributing to the project and volunteered to be a mentor for GSoC 2013, which is really great awesome. Based on discussion with other projects and on our experience, we considered merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next years

In 2012, 5 team members mentored 4 students. Each mentor was also the co-mentor of another task, so the backup mentoring was still working well. 3 students passed, and one failed at mid-term. One student is still contributing to the project and volunteered to be a mentor for GSoC 2013, which is really great awesome. Based on discussion with other projects and on our experience, we considered merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next years

In 2011, 4 team members mentored 2 students. One student succeeded in objectifying the CruisE engine, which really needed it. The other student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our main repository, after being worked on further by a team member). After stepping back to review our processes, we feel we can still consider them to be mature. Part of the problems which caused the student to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining the project management structure.

In 2011, 4 team members mentored 2 students. One student succeeded in objectifying the CruisE engine, which really needed it. The other student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our main repository, after being worked on further by a team member). After stepping back to review our processes, we feel we can still consider them to be mature. Part of the problems which caused the student to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining the project management structure.

In 2007 we had 7 students and 4 mentors in total. Two of our students have been promoted to active, regular developers in the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in the codebase. One other student's code contributions have also been integrated in the mainline. Two more have their code still in development to improve it and make it production-ready, either through optimization or extension and better integration. Two students failed to keep up with the schedule and/or produced inadequate code.

In 2007 we had 7 students and 4 mentors in total. Two of our students have been promoted to active, regular developers in the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in the codebase. One other student's code contributions have also been integrated in the mainline. Two more have their code still in development to improve it and make it production-ready, either through optimization or extension and better integration. Two students failed to keep up with the schedule and/or produced inadequate code.

All in all, we maintain that we are refining our method of student selection the past years and this refinement leads to better results each year.

All in all, we maintain that we are refining our method of student selection the past years and this refinement leads to better results each year.