DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1702.08008V1 [Cs.SE] 26 Feb 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1702.08008V1 [Cs.SE] 26 Feb 2017 JETracer - A Framework for Java GUI Event Tracing Arthur-Jozsef Molnar Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Babes¸-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania [email protected] Keywords: GUI, event, tracing, analysis, instrumentation, Java. Abstract: The present paper introduces the open-source Java Event Tracer (JETracer) framework for real-time tracing of GUI events within applications based on the AWT, Swing or SWT graphical toolkits. Our framework pro- vides a common event model for supported toolkits, the possibility of receiving GUI events in real-time, good performance in the case of complex target applications and the possibility of deployment over a network. The present paper provides the rationale for JETracer, presents related research and details its technical implemen- tation. An empirical evaluation where JETracer is used to trace GUI events within five popular, open-source applications is also presented. 1 INTRODUCTION 1400 professional developers regarding the strate- gies, tools and problems encountered by professionals The graphical user interface (GUI) is currently the when comprehending software. Among the most sig- most pervasive paradigm for human-computer inter- nificant findings are that developers usually interact action. With the continued proliferation of mobile with the target application’s GUI for finding the start- devices, GUI-driven applications remain the norm in ing point of further interaction as well as the use of today’s landscape of pervasive computing. Given IDE’s in parallel with more specialized tools. Of par- their virtual omnipresence and increasing complex- ticular note was the finding that ”industry developers ity across different platforms, it stands to reason that do not use dedicated program comprehension tools tools supporting their lifecycle must keep pace. This developed by the research community” (Maalej et al., is especially evident for many applications where 2014). Another important issue regards open access GUI-related code takes up as much as 50% of all ap- to state of the art tooling. As we show in the follow- plication code (Memon, 2001). ing section, there exist commercial tools that incorpo- rate some of the functionalities of JETracer. However, Therefore we believe that software tooling that as they are closed-source and available against signif- supports the GUI application development lifecycle icant licensing fees, they have limited impact within will take on an increasing importance in practition- the academia. ers’ toolboxes. Such software can assist with many activities, starting with analysis and design, as well Our motivation for developing JETracer is the as coding, program comprehension, software visual- lack of open-source software tools providing multi- ization and testing. This is confirmed when studying platform GUI event tracing. We believe GUI event the evolution of a widely used IDE such as Eclipse tracing supports the development of further innova- (Hou and Wang, 2009), where each new version ships tive tools. These may target program comprehension arXiv:1702.08008v1 [cs.SE] 26 Feb 2017 with more advanced features which are aimed at help- or visualization by creating runtime traces or software ing professionals create higher quality software faster. testing by providing real-time information about exe- Furthermore, the creation of innovative tools is nowa- cuted code. days aided by the prevalence of managed, flexible The present paper is structured as follows: the platforms such as Java and .NET, which enable novel next section presents related work, while the third sec- tool approaches via techniques such as reflection, tion details JETracer’s technical implementation. The code instrumentation and the use of annotations. fourth section is dedicated to an evaluation using 5 The supportive role of tooling is already well es- popular open-source applications. The final section tablished in the literature. In (Maalej et al., 2014), presents our conclusions together with plans for fu- the authors conduct an industry survey covering over ture work. 2 RELATED WORK large-scale industrial evaluation with encouraging re- sults (Aho et al., 2014). A representative approach is The first important work is the Valgrind1 multi- the GUISurfer tool, which builds a language indepen- platform dynamic binary instrumentation framework. dent model of the targeted GUI using static analysis Valgrind loads the target into memory and instru- (Silva et al., 2010). ments it (Nethercote and Seward, 2007) in a man- Another active area of research relevant to JE- ner that is similar with our approach. Among Val- Tracer is GUI application testing, an area with notable grind’s users we mention the DAIKON invariant de- results both from commercial as well as academic or- tection system (Perkins and Ernst, 2004) as well as the ganizations. The first wave of tools enabling auto- TaintCheck system (Newsome, 2005). An approach mated testing for GUI applications are represented by related to Valgrind is the DTrace2 tool. Described as capture-replay implementations such as Pounder or an ”observability technology” by its authors (Cooper, Marathon, which enable recording a user’s interaction 2012), DTrace allows observing what system compo- with the application (Nedyalkova and Bernardino, nents are doing during program execution 2013). The recorded actions are then replayed auto- While the first efforts targeted natively-compiled matically and any change in the response of the tar- languages from the C family, the prevalence of get application, such as an uncaught exception or an instrumentation-friendly and object oriented plat- unexpected window being displayed are interpreted forms such as Java and .NET spearheaded the cre- as errors. The main limitation of such tools lays ation of supportive tooling from platform developers in limitations when identifying graphical widgets, as and third parties alike. In this regard we mention Or- changes to the target application can easily break test acle’s Java Mission Control and Flight Recorder tools case replayability. More advanced tools integrate (Oracle, 2013) that provide monitoring for Java sys- scripting engines facilitating quick test suite creation tems. Another important contribution is Javaassist, such as Abbot and TestNG (Ruiz and Price, 2007). a tool which facilitates instrumentation of Java class However, existing open-source tools are limited to files, including core classes during JVM class load- a single GUI toolkit (Nedyalkova and Bernardino, ing (Chiba, 2004). Its capabilities and ease of use led 2013). Even more so, some of these tools such as to its widespread use in dynamic analysis and tracing Abbot and Pounder are no longer in active develop- (van der Merwe et al., 2014). As discussed in more ment, and using them with the latest version of Java detail within the following sections, JETracer uses yields runtime errors. Javaassist for instrumenting key classes responsible These projects paved the way for commercial im- for firing events within targeted GUI frameworks. plementations such as MarathonITE3, a fully-featured The previously detailed frameworks and tools and commercial implementation of Marathon or the have facilitated the implementation of novel soft- Squish4 toolkit. When compared with their open- ware used both in research and industry targeting pro- source alternatives, these applications provide greater gram comprehension, software visualization and test- flexibility by supporting many GUI toolkits such as ing. A first effort in this direction was the JOVE tool AWT/Swing, SWT, Qt, Web as well as mobile plat- for software visualization (Reiss and Renieris, 2005). forms. In addition, they provide more precise wid- JOVE uses code instrumentation to capture snapshots get recognition algorithms which helps with test case of each working thread and create a program trace playback. GUI interactions can be recorded as scripts which can then be displayed using several visualiza- using non-proprietary languages such as Python or tions (Reiss and Renieris, 2005). A different approach JavaScript, making it easier to modify or update test is taken within Whyline, which proposes a number cases. As part of our research we employed the of ”Why/Why not” type of questions about the target Squish tool for recording consistently replayable user program’s textual or graphical output (Ko and Myers, interaction scenarios which are described in detail 2010). Whyline uses bytecode instrumentation to cre- within the evaluation section. From the related work ate program traces and record the program’s graphical surveyed, we found the Squish implementation to be output, with the execution history used for providing the closest one to JETracer. The Squish tool con- answers to the selected questions. sists of a server component that is contained within An important area of research where JETracer the IDE and a hook component deployed within the is expected to contribute targets the visualization of AUT (Froglogic, 2015). The Java implementation of GUI-driven applications. This is of particular interest Squish uses a Java agent and employs a similar ar- as an area where research results recently underwent chitecture to our own framework, which is detailed 1http://valgrind.org/ 3http://marathontesting.com/ 2http://dtrace.org/blogs 4http://www.froglogic.com/squish within the following section. In contrast to commercial implementations en- cumbered by restrictive and pricey licensing agree- ments, we designed JETracer as an open framework to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jedit: Isabelle/Jedit
    jEdit ∀ = Isabelle α λ β → Isabelle/jEdit Makarius Wenzel 5 December 2013 Abstract Isabelle/jEdit is a fully-featured Prover IDE, based on Isabelle/Scala and the jEdit text editor. This document provides an overview of general principles and its main IDE functionality. i Isabelle's user interface is no advance over LCF's, which is widely condemned as \user-unfriendly": hard to use, bewildering to begin- ners. Hence the interest in proof editors, where a proof can be con- structed and modified rule-by-rule using windows, mouse, and menus. But Edinburgh LCF was invented because real proofs require millions of inferences. Sophisticated tools | rules, tactics and tacticals, the language ML, the logics themselves | are hard to learn, yet they are essential. We may demand a mouse, but we need better education and training. Lawrence C. Paulson, \Isabelle: The Next 700 Theorem Provers" Acknowledgements Research and implementation of concepts around PIDE and Isabelle/jEdit has started around 2008 and was kindly supported by: • TU M¨unchen http://www.in.tum.de • BMBF http://www.bmbf.de • Universit´eParis-Sud http://www.u-psud.fr • Digiteo http://www.digiteo.fr • ANR http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Concepts and terminology....................1 1.2 The Isabelle/jEdit Prover IDE..................2 1.2.1 Documentation......................3 1.2.2 Plugins...........................4 1.2.3 Options..........................4 1.2.4 Keymaps..........................5 1.2.5 Look-and-feel.......................5 2 Prover IDE functionality7 2.1 File-system access.........................7 2.2 Text buffers and theories....................8 2.3 Prover output..........................9 2.4 Tooltips and hyperlinks....................
    [Show full text]
  • Set-Up Environment
    Set-up Environment Note: While this instruction utilises Windows to demonstrate the installation process, it does apply to other operating systems including Mac OS and Linux. Step 1. Install MinGW on Windows (skip this step if you use Mac OS or Linux) FYI: “MinGW” is a Windows implementation of C compiler that will convert your C source code into executable files. For Mac OS and Linux, C compilers should have already been installed. If you have not already installed “MinGW” for Windows, then use the other document <Install MinGW> on the same LMS page to install it. “MinGW” needs to be installed (or is not installed correctly) if you get the following error message: 'gcc' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file. Step 2.1 Check if you have Java SE 11 (JDK) installed FYI: You are not required to know what “JDK” stands for and what it means. Just bear in mind that it is a prerequisite to running jEdit 5.6.0. How do I know if I have Java installed? Windows: Select from the “Control Panel” => “Programs and Features” and check if you can find an entry called “Java(TM) SE Development Kit 11.0.10 (64-bit)” (or later). If you see such an entry, everything is fine and you can go to Step 3. Otherwise, you do not have Java installed and need to go to Step 2.2 Mac OS / Linux: Open “Terminal” and type “java -version”. If you can see the line: java version “11.0.10” or later, everything is fine and you can go to Step 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Course 2: «Open Source Software (OSS) Engineering Data»
    Course 2: «Open Source Software (OSS) Engineering Data». 1st Day: Metrics and Tools for Software Engineering in Open Source Software 1. Open Software / Hardware Technologies: Introduction to Open Source Software and related technologies. 2. Software Engineering FLOSS: Free Libre Open Source Software in Software Engineering. 3. Metrics for Open Source Software: product and project metrics and related tooling. 2nd Day: Research based on Open Source Software Data 4. Facilitating Metric for White-Box Reuse: we will discuss a metric derived from the analysis of Open Source Project which facilitates the white-box reuse (reuse based on the source code analysis). 5. Extracting components from Open-Source: The Component Adaptation Environment Approach (COPE): we will discuss the results of the OPEN-SME EU Research Project and in particular the COPE tool for extracting reusable components from Open Source Software. 6. Software Engineering Research based on Open Source Software Data: Data, A recent example: we will discuss a recent study of open source repository mailing lists for deriving implications for the evolution of an open source project. 7. Improving Component Coupling Information with Dynamic Profiling: we will discuss how dynamic profiling of an open source program can contribute towards its comprehension. In various points during the lectures students will be asked to carry out activities. Open Software / Hardware Technologies Ioannis Stamelos, Professor Nikolaos Konofaos, Associate Professor School of Informatics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki George Kakarontzas, Assistant Professor University of Thessaly 2018-2019 1 F/OSS - FLOSS Definition ● The traditional SW development model asks for a “closed member” team that develops proprietary source code.
    [Show full text]
  • Jedit 5.6 User's Guide the Jedit All-Volunteer Developer Team Jedit 5.6 User's Guide the Jedit All-Volunteer Developer Team
    jEdit 5.6 User's Guide The jEdit all-volunteer developer team jEdit 5.6 User's Guide The jEdit all-volunteer developer team Legal Notice Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no “Invariant Sections”, “Front-Cover Texts” or “Back-Cover Texts”, each as defined in the license. A copy of the license can be found in the file COPYING.DOC.txt included with jEdit. I. Using jEdit ............................................................................................................... 1 1. Conventions ...................................................................................................... 2 2. Starting jEdit .................................................................................................... 3 Command Line Usage .................................................................................... 3 Miscellaneous Options ........................................................................... 4 Configuration Options ............................................................................ 4 Edit Server Options ............................................................................... 4 Java Virtual Machine Options ........................................................................ 5 3. jEdit Basics ...................................................................................................... 7 Interface Overview .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Isabelle/Jedit
    jEdit ∀ = Isabelle α λ β → Isabelle/jEdit Makarius Wenzel 9 June 2019 Abstract Isabelle/jEdit is a fully-featured Prover IDE, based on Isabelle/Scala and the jEdit text editor. This document provides an overview of general principles and its main IDE functionality. i Isabelle’s user interface is no advance over LCF’s, which is widely condemned as “user-unfriendly”: hard to use, bewildering to begin- ners. Hence the interest in proof editors, where a proof can be con- structed and modified rule-by-rule using windows, mouse, and menus. But Edinburgh LCF was invented because real proofs require millions of inferences. Sophisticated tools — rules, tactics and tacticals, the language ML, the logics themselves — are hard to learn, yet they are essential. We may demand a mouse, but we need better education and training. Lawrence C. Paulson, “Isabelle: The Next 700 Theorem Provers” Acknowledgements Research and implementation of concepts around PIDE and Isabelle/jEdit has started in 2008 and was kindly supported by: • TU München https://www.in.tum.de • BMBF https://www.bmbf.de • Université Paris-Sud https://www.u-psud.fr • Digiteo https://www.digiteo.fr • ANR https://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Concepts and terminology....................1 1.2 The Isabelle/jEdit Prover IDE..................2 1.2.1 Documentation......................3 1.2.2 Plugins...........................4 1.2.3 Options..........................4 1.2.4 Keymaps..........................5 1.3 Command-line invocation....................5 1.4 GUI rendering...........................8 1.4.1 Look-and-feel.......................8 1.4.2 Displays with high resolution..............8 2 Augmented jEdit functionality 11 2.1 Dockable windows.......................
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Failures Using Software Dependences and Churn Metrics
    Explaining Failures Using Software Dependences and Churn Metrics Nachiappan Nagappan 1, Thomas Ball 2 ABSTRACT Commercial software development is a complex task that requires a thorough understanding of the architecture of the software system. We analyze the Windows Server 2003 operating system in order to assess the relationship between its software dependences, churn metrics and post-release failures. Our analysis indicates the ability of software dependences and churn metrics to be efficient predictors of post-release failures. Further, we investigate the relationship between the software dependences and churn metrics and their ability to assess failure-proneness probabilities at statistically significant levels. Keywords Software dependences, Code churn, Failures, Failure-proneness, Multiple regression, Logistic regression. 1. INTRODUCTION The IEEE standard [18] for software engineering terminology defines “architecture” as the organizational structure of a system or component. Related is IEEE’s definition of architectural design [18] as the results of the process of defining a collection of hardware and software components and their interfaces to establish the framework (or architecture) for the development of a computer system. In any large-scale software development effort, a software architecture enables teams to work independently on different components in the architecture. Large software systems often are decomposed hierarchically in a tree, where the leaves of the tree provide lower level services that 1 Nachiappan Nagappan is a Researcher at Microsoft Research, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Email: [email protected] 2 Thomas Ball is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Email: [email protected] components higher in the tree depend on.
    [Show full text]
  • Periphery Structures in Open Source Software Development
    Exploring the Impact of Socio-Technical Core- Periphery Structures in Open Source Software Development Chintan Amrit (Corresponding author) Faculty Management and Governance Department of Information Systems and Change Management University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands Telephone: 0031(0)53 4894064 Fax: +31(0)53 4892159 Email: [email protected] Prof Dr. Jos van Hillegersberg Department of Information Systems and Change Management University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands Telephone: 0031 (0) 53 4893513 Fax: +31 53 489 21 59 Email: j.vanhillegersberg @utwente.nl Acknowledgements We would like to thank Jeff Hicks for his extensive feedback that was really helpful in structuring the paper. Exploring the Impact of Socio-Technical Core- Periphery Structures in Open Source Software Development Abstract In this paper we apply the Social Network concept of Core-Periphery structure to the Socio-Technical structure of a software development team. We propose a Socio-Technical Pattern that can be used to locate emerging coordination problems in Open Source Projects. With the help of our tool and method called TESNA, we demonstrate a method to monitor the Socio-Technical Core-Periphery movement in Open Source projects. We then study the impact of different Core-Periphery movements on Open Source projects. We conclude that a steady Core-Periphery shift towards the core is beneficial to the project, while shifts away from the core are clearly not good. Furthermore, oscillatory shifts towards and away from the Core can be considered as an indication of the instability of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grinder to Do List
    The Grinder To Do list Table of contents 1 Enhancements............................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Console Services..................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Functional...........................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Packaging........................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Deprecate Console API......................................................................................3 1.2 Script Distribution................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Console....................................................................................................................3 1.3.1 Stop the recording when last thread terminates................................................. 3 1.3.2 Refactoring.........................................................................................................3 1.3.3 Add log panel.................................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Future editor features.........................................................................................3 1.4 Engine......................................................................................................................4 1.4.1 Instrumentation API...........................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Authoring of Semantic Mathematical Content for Learning on the Web
    Authoring of Semantic Mathematical Content for Learning on the Web Paul Libbrecht Doctoral thesis at the faculty of computer-science of the Saarland University under the supervision of Prof. Jörg Siekmann and Dr Erica Melis,† and under the expertise of Prof. Gerhardt Weikum and Prof. James Davenport. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades des Doktors der Ingenieurwissenschaften der Naturwissenschaftlich- Technischen Fakultäten der Universität des Saarlandes. Saarbrücken, Germany – 2012 This doctoral thesis has been defended on July 30th 2012 at the University of Saarland under the supervision of a committee appointed by the faculty dean, Prof. Mark Groves: Prof. Jörg Siekmann (reporting chairman), Prof. James Davenport (reporter), Prof. Gerhard Weikum (reporter), Prof. Anselm Lambert (chairman), and Dr. George Goguadze (faculty member). Colophon This doctoral thesis is typeset using the pdflatex programme, a contemporary part of clas- sical TeX distributions (see http://tug.org/). This programme is run through TeXshop, an application for TeX on MacOSX (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/koch/texshop/). The source of the thesis has been partially written in TeX sources (chapters 2, 5, and 9, as well as the chapters without numbers) and partially using OmniGroup’s OmniOutliner, an outliner for MacOSX (see http://www.omnigroup.com/omnioutliner), followed by a hand-made XSLT stylesheet to convert an almost visual source to its TeX counterpart. This thesis is typeset using the font urw-classico, a clone of the font Optima realized by Bob Tennent for the TeX users; see http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/urw/ classico/. The main body of the text is typeset in 10 pt size.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Evolution
    Software Evolution Miryung Kim, Na Meng, and Tianyi Zhang Abstract Software evolution plays an ever-increasing role in software develop- ment. Programmers rarely build software from scratch but often spend more time in modifying existing software to provide new features to customers and fix defects in existing software. Evolving software systems are often a time-consuming and error-prone process. This chapter overviews key concepts and principles in the area of software evolution and presents the fundamentals of state-of-the art methods, tools, and techniques for evolving software. The chapter first classifies the types of software changes into four types: perfective changes to expand the existing require- ments of a system, corrective changes for resolving defects, adaptive changes to accommodate any modifications to the environments, and finally preventive changes to improve the maintainability of software. For each type of changes, the chapter overviews software evolution techniques from the perspective of three kinds of activities: (1) applying changes, (2) inspecting changes, and (3) validating changes. The chapter concludes with the discussion of open problems and research challenges for the future. 1 Introduction Software evolution plays an ever-increasing role in software development. Program- mers rarely build software from scratch but often spend more time in modifying existing software to provide new features to customers and fix defects in existing All authors have contributed equally to this chapter. M. Kim · T. Zhang University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N. Meng Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 223 S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study on Refactoring Activity
    An Empirical Study on Refactoring Activity Mohammad Iftekharul Hoque, Vijay Nag Ranga, Anurag Reddy Pedditi, Rachitha Srinath, Md Ali Ahsan Rana, Md Eftakhairul Islam, Afshin Somani Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Abstract— This paper reports an empirical study on We inspected the refactoring history of refactoring activity in three Java software systems. We three well known projects namely JFreeChart, investigated some questions on refactoring activity, to JEdit and JMeter and investigated 7 research confirm or disagree on conclusions that have been questions related to refactoring practice. These drawn from previous empirical studies. Unlike questions are: previous empirical studies, our study found that it is not always true that there are more refactoring RQ1: Is refactoring interleaved with other activities before major project release date than after. types of maintenance activity (floss In contrast, we were able to confirm that software refactoring) or is it performed in a developers perform different types of refactoring periodic fashion (root-canal operations on test code and production code, specific refactoring)? developers are responsible for refactorings in the RQ2: Are there adequate tests for refactoring project, refactoring edits are not very well tested. edits in practice? Further, floss refactoring is more popular among the RQ3: Do software developers perform developers, refactoring activity is frequent in the different types of refactoring operations projects, majority of bad smells once occurred they on test code and production code? persist up to the latest version of the system. By RQ4: Which developers are responsible for confirming assumptions by other researchers we can refactorings in the project? have greater confidence that those research RQ5: Is there more refactoring activity before conclusions are generalizable.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development Practices Apis for Solver and UDF
    Elmer Software Development Practices APIs for Solver and UDF ElmerTeam CSC – IT Center for Science CSC, November.2015 Elmer programming languages Fortran90 (and newer) – ElmerSolver (~240,000 lines of which ~50% in DLLs) C++ – ElmerGUI (~18,000 lines) – ElmerSolver (~10,000 lines) C – ElmerPost (~45,000 lines) – ElmerGrid (~30,000 lines) – MATC (~11,000 lines) Tools for Elmer development Programming languages – Fortran90 (and newer), C, C++ Compilation – Compiler (e.g. gnu), configure, automake, make, (cmake) Editing – emacs, vi, notepad++,… Code hosting (git) – Current: https://github.com/ElmerCSC – Obsolite: www.sf.net/projects/elmerfem Consistency tests Code documentation – Doxygen Theory documentation – Latex Community server – www.elmerfem.org (forum, wiki, etc.) Elmer libraries ElmerSolver – Required: Matc, HutIter, Lapack, Blas, Umfpack (GPL) – Optional: Arpack, Mumps, Hypre, Pardiso, Trilinos, SuperLU, Cholmod, NetCDF, HDF5, … ElmerGUI – Required: Qt, ElmerGrid, Netgen – Optional: Tetgen, OpenCASCADE, VTK, QVT Elmer licenses ElmerSolver library is published under LGPL – Enables linking with all license types – It is possible to make a new solver even under proprietary license – Note: some optional libraries may constrain this freedom due to use of GPL licences Rest of Elmer is published under GPL – Derived work must also be under same license (“copyleft”) Elmer version control at GitHub In 2015 the official version control of Elmer was transferred from svn at sf.net to git hosted at GitHub Git offers more flexibility over svn
    [Show full text]