Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summer of Code/Application/2014

282 bytes added, 00:31, 11 February 2014
=== If you chose "veteran" in the organization profile dropdown, please summarize your involvement and the successes and challenges of your participation. Please also list your pass/fail rate for each year. ===
<span style="color:red">We have participated in the GSoC program for the last seven years running, in . From 2007-2013.</span>
<span style="color:red">In 2013, we were granted 4 students mentored by 6 team members. Each mentor was also backup mentor of another task. All the students passed, and 2 students Below are still actively contributing the project and one student is still regularly on our channel too. One details of the active students would also like to participate again in GSoC this year as a student. Merging code earlier gave excellent results successes and challenges we'll do the same if possible this have encountered grouped by year in order to confirm the excellent results of this year</span>.
In 2012, 5 '''2013:''' 4 students mentored by 6 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<span style="color:red"> and GSoC 2014</span>, which is really awesome. Based on discussion with other projects and on our experience, we are considering merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and have modified our processes accordingly for the next year.
In 2011All the students passed, 4 team members mentored and 2 students. One student succeeded in objectifying are still actively contributing the CruisE engine, which really needed it. The other project and one student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our main repository, after being worked is still regularly on further by a team member). After stepping back to review our processes, we feel we can still consider them to be matureIRC channel. Part One of the problems which caused active students would also like to participate again in GSoC this year as a student. Merging code earlier gave excellent results and we'll do the student same if possible this year in order to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining build on the project management structuregreat results of this year.
In 2010 we were granted '''2012:''' 4 slots and had 6 mentors, thus we had nice backup mentoring for every studentstudents mentored by 5 team members. All four passed Each mentor was also the finals this time, and we merged in their code. One student still continues to contribute to the project. We addressed several long standing project needs and it was just excellentco-mentor of another task.
In 2009 we had 5 students and 6 mentors. 4 of our 3 students passed, and one failed at mid-term. One student is still actively contributing to the finalsproject and volunteered to be a mentor for GSoC 2013<span style="color:red"> and GSoC 2014</span>, which is really awesome. That Based on discussion with other projects and our experience one of the key outcomes from this year the success was so big that all to look at merging student code earlier in the GSoC process and encouraging students' code was merged within three months into the main to be much closer to mainline development line. We were considered to be mature in modified our processes by that time with excellent outcomeaccordingly for the next year.
In 2008 we had 6 '''2011:''' 2 students and 7 mentorsmentored by 4 team members. 5 of our students were so successful that their code is included in Each mentor was also the mainline co-mentor of ScummVM, and we consider it a great achievement the fact that 4 of the students continued to contribute to the projectanother task.
In 2007 we had 7 students and 4 mentors 1 student succeeded in totalobjectifying the CruisE engine, which really needed it. Two of The other student unfortunately gave up fairly quickly after starting work (although the work done was eventually merged into our students continued main repository, after being worked on further by a team member). After stepping back to become activereview our processes, regular developers in we feel we can still consider them to be mature. Part of the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in problems which caused the codebase. All but two of student to quickly give up came from internal tensions, that we have since addressed by redefining the other students succeeded in their projectsproject management structure.
'''2010:''' 4 students mentored by 6 team members. Each mentor was also the co-mentor of another task. All four passed the finals this time, and we merged in their code. One student still continues to contribute to the project. We addressed several long standing project needs and this was a very good year for the project. '''2009:''' 5 students mentored by 6 team members. Some co-mentoring happened. 4 of our students passed, and one failed the finals. The year was a the success and all the students' code was merged within three months into the main development line. We considered this to be a good outcome. '''2008:''' 6 students mentored by 7 mentors.  5 of our students were so successful that their code is included in the mainline of ScummVM, and we consider it a great achievement that 4 of the students continued to contribute to the project afterwards. '''2007:''' 7 students mentored by 4 mentors. 5 of our students passed. Two of our students continued to become active, regular developers in the team after having their respective code contributions integrated in the codebase. Two of the students did not succeeded in their projects. All in all, we maintain that we are have been refining our method of student selection and balancing the workload and commitment required to achieve great outcomes in the past years and this refinement leads to generally better results each year.  The discussions, testimonials and proposed actions which the mentor summit has brought up raised -and which we have participated in these six yearsduring our involvement with GSoC - have helped us a great deal, during this refinement process as well. Our new wider management organization has also proven its efficiency during these last 2 years, and we expect much of it hope to continue improving the experience for all parties in the future.
Summary pass/fail: <span style="color:red">2013: 4/0</span> 2012: 3/1 2011: 1/1 2010: 4/0 2009: 4/1 2008: 5/1 2007: 5/2
208

edits

Navigation menu