DOCSLIB.ORG

Estado De La Práctica De La Ingeniería De Requisitos En Proyectos De Software Open Source

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estado De La Práctica De La Ingeniería De Requisitos En Proyectos De Software Open Source Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics Màster en Computació Yolanda Escribano Luis Estado de la práctica de la Ingeniería de Requisitos en proyectos de Software Open Source Tesis de Máster Directora: Claudia P. Ayala Martínez Barcelona, España, Enero 2011 Copyright © 2011 by Yolanda Escribano Luis Contenido Índice de Figuras........................................................................................................... 6 Índice de Tablas ............................................................................................................ 8 Capítulo 1: Introducción................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Contexto y definición del problema................................................................... 9 1.2 Objetivo ........................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Justificación ..................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Metodología y estrategias para resolver el problema ...................................... 11 1.5 Estructura de la tesis ........................................................................................ 12 Capítulo 2: Estado del arte y trabajos relacionados ................................................. 13 2.1 Software Open Source (OSS) .......................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Definición ................................................................................................. 14 2.1.2 Licencias................................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Formas de trabajo de las comunidades OSS............................................. 18 2.1.4 Roles OSS................................................................................................. 20 2.2 La disciplina de la Ingeniería de Requisitos .................................................... 22 2.2.1 Definición ................................................................................................. 22 2.2.2 Ciclo de vida de la Ingeniería de Requisitos ............................................ 23 2.2.3 Evolución del concepto y los modelos de desarrollo ............................... 24 2.3 Gestión de Requisitos en Comunidades OSS .................................................. 28 2.3.1 Requisitos, análisis y diseño..................................................................... 28 2.3.2 Infraestructuras de comunicación............................................................. 29 2.4 Gobernabilidad, Toma de decisiones y Relaciones de Poder .......................... 35 2.4.1 Gobernabilidad ......................................................................................... 35 2.4.2 Toma de decisiones en las comunidades OSS.......................................... 37 2.4.3 Relaciones de poder.................................................................................. 37 2.5 Principales Infraestructuras para Localización y Hosting de Productos OSS . 38 2.5.1 Ohloh.net .................................................................................................. 38 2.5.2 SourceForge.net........................................................................................ 39 2.6 Ingeniería de Software Empírica ..................................................................... 40 Capítulo 3: Metodología............................................................................................... 43 3.1 Estrategia empírica seleccionada..................................................................... 43 Capítulo 4: Datos Obtenidos........................................................................................ 51 4.1 Comunidad Firebug......................................................................................... 51 4.1.1 Resultados de la investigación de Firebug ............................................... 55 4.2 Comunidad Git................................................................................................. 58 4.2.1 Resultados de la investigación de Git....................................................... 64 4.3 Comunidad jQuery UI...................................................................................... 67 4.3.1 Resultados de la investigación de jQuery UI............................................ 73 4.4 Comunidad Trac...............................................................................................77 4.4.1 Resultados de la investigación de Trac .................................................... 83 4.5 Comunidad FreeRapid Downloader................................................................ 87 4.5.1 Resultados de la investigación de FreeRapid Downloader ...................... 91 4.6 Comunidad Camino ......................................................................................... 95 4.6.1 Resultados de la investigación de Camino ............................................. 104 3 4.7 Comunidad Apache http Server Project......................................................... 107 4.7.1 Resultados de la investigación de Apache HTTP Server ....................... 115 Capítulo 5: Análisis de los resultados obtenidos...................................................... 119 5.1 Resumen de los datos obtenidos .................................................................... 119 5.2 Análisis del estudio realizado ........................................................................ 124 5.2.1 Tipos de liderazgo .................................................................................. 124 5.2.2 Prácticas de trabajo................................................................................. 126 5.2.3 Estructura de la Wiki en las comunidades OSS ..................................... 128 5.2.4 Características de los foros de las comunidades OSS ............................ 134 5.2.5 Principales fuentes de requisitos............................................................. 138 5.2.6 Principales infraestructuras de requisitos ............................................... 139 5.2.7 Participación en las infraestructuras de cada comunidad ....................... 140 5.2.8 Porcentaje de participación de cada fuente en las infraestructuras de la comunidad ............................................................................................................ 142 5.2.9 Especificación, Análisis y diseño de los requisitos ................................ 145 5.2.10 Evolución e identificación de las prácticas de la Ingeniería de Requisitos …………………………………………………………………………………...145 Capítulo 6: Validez y limitaciones del estudio ......................................................... 147 6.1 Validez de la construcción............................................................................. 147 6.2 Validez interna............................................................................................... 147 6.3 Validez externa.............................................................................................. 148 Capítulo 7: Conclusiones y Futuro Trabajo ............................................................ 151 7.1 Tipos de liderazgo más usados ...................................................................... 151 7.2 Prácticas de trabajo más utilizadas ................................................................ 152 7.3 Estructura de las wikis en las comunidades OSS........................................... 154 7.4 Características de los foros en las comunidades OSS.................................... 154 7.5 Principales fuentes de requisitos e infraestructuras de las comunidades OSS155 7.6 Participación en las infraestructuras de las comunidades OSS...................... 156 7.7 Roles de colaboración.................................................................................... 157 7.8 Trabajo Futuro............................................................................................... 158 Referencias .................................................................................................................. 159 Apéndice A .................................................................................................................. 176 9.1 Documentación versión 2.2 Apache HTTP Server........................................ 176 9.2 Listas de mails de Apache HTTP Server ....................................................... 178 Apéndice B .................................................................................................................. 181 10.1 Estudio de Firebug CVS de Firebug .......................................................... 181 10.2 Estudio de Git Mailing List Archive (MARC) .......................................... 184 10.3 Estudio de las listas de correo de Trac ....................................................... 205 10.3.1 Estudio de Trac Development Google Group..................................... 205 10.3.2 Estudio de Trac Users Google Group ................................................. 212 10.3.3 Estudio de Trac Tickets Google Group .............................................. 218 10.4 Estudio del contenido de la Wiki de jQuery UI ......................................... 219 10.4.1 Lista de plugins previstos para jQuery UI .......................................... 219 10.4.2 Documentación dirigida a desarrolladores.........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chenlamkraemer2007crito.Pdf
    INTRODUCTION Arguably the most popular search engine available today, Google is widely known for its unparalleled search engine technology, embodied in the web page ranking algorithm, PageRanki and running on an efficient distributed computer system. In fact, the verb “to Google” has ingrained itself in the vernacular as a synonym of “[performing] a web search.”1 The key to Google’s success has been its strategic use of both software and hardware information technologies. The IT infrastructure behind the search engine includes huge storage databases and numerous server farms to produce significant computational processing power. These critical IT components are distributed across multiple independent computers that provide parallel computing resources. This architecture has allowed Google’s business to reach a market capital over $100 billion and become one of the most respected and admirable companies in the world. MARKET ENVIRONMENTS Search Engine Internet search engines were first developed in the early 1990s to facilitate the sharing of information among researchers. The original effort to develop a tool for information search occurred simultaneously across multiple universities is shown in Table 1. Although functionalities of these systems were very limited, they provided the foundation for future web- based search engines. TABLE 1. Early Search Engines Search Engine Name University Year Inventor Archie McGill University 1990 Alan Emtage Veronica University of Nevada 1993 Many students WWW Wanderer Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1993 Matthew Gray Source: Battelle, 2005. Search Industry During the 1990s, the Internet experienced exponential growth with thousands of new web pages being created daily. Online document search became the chief method of navigating the ever- expanding World Wide Web, as Internet users sought useful information among the largely disorganized pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Tls Performance
    TLS PERFORMANCE Masterarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Master of Science Verfasser: Richard Fussenegger, BSc Vorgelegt am FH-Masterstudiengang MultiMediaTechnology, Fachhochschule Salzburg Begutachtet durch: Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Peter Meerwald (Betreuer) Mag. (FH) Hannes Moser (Zweitgutachter) Thal, 1. Juni 2015 I Eidesstattliche Erklärung Hiermit versichere ich, Richard Fussenegger, geboren am 27. Juni 1985 in Bregenz, dass ich die Grundsätze wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen einge- halten habe und die vorliegende Masterarbeit von mir selbstständig verfasst wurde. Zur Erstellung wurden von mir keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet. Ich versichere, dass ich die Masterarbeit weder im In- noch Ausland bisher in ir- gendeiner Form als Prüfungsarbeit vorgelegt habe und dass diese Arbeit mit der den BegutachterInnen vorgelegten Arbeit übereinstimmt. Thal, am 1. Juni 2015 1210695017 Richard Fussenegger Personenkennzeichen II Kurzfassung Verschlüsselte Kommunikation ist ein Muss im Internet, die neuen Protokolle SPDY und HTTP/2 verpflichten quasi sogar dazu. Eine wichtige Frage die bleibt, ist, wie stark die Verschlüsselung sich auf die Leistung der Webkommunikation auswirkt. Vor etwas mehr als zehn Jahren variierte der Mehraufwand für den Einsatz von Transport Layer Security (TLS) zwischen einem Faktor von 3,5 und 9 gegenüber einer unverschlüsselten Kommunikation. Die Anforderungen an verschlüsselte Kommunikation sind in den letzten Jahren stark angestiegen und sehr viele Verfahren haben sich als unsicher und problematisch erwiesen. Schlüssellängen sind angewachsen und aufwendigere Verfahren kommen zum Einsatz für den Schlüsselaustausch. Es stellt sich somit die Frage ob schnellere Hardware, Webser- ver, Algorithmen und Implementierungen – wie damals angenommen – den Mehraufwand verschwindend gering machen, oder gegenwärtige Technologien nicht mit den erhöhten Anforderungen mithalten können.
    [Show full text]
  • Camino Browser Download Exams
    camino browser download Exams. We assess our students on a regular basis, but we rarely stop to evaluate the assessment! Does your test assess student knowledge at the level you intended (e.g., descriptive, evaluate, apply, analyze)? Does it address the most important learning objectives of a unit or the course? Will the exam preparation and test itself encourage students to consolidate their knowledge and even extend their understanding of the material? Evaluating tests—usually those tests with true-false, multiple choice, and short answer questions—includes investigating the test—e.g., measuring reliability and validity—and the individual questions—e.g., measuring difficulty and discrimination. The following descriptions offer more detail about each method of measurement: Reliability – How consistently does the test assess student achievement of the learning outcomes? Validity – How well does the test represent the knowledge or skills students need to achieve the learning outcomes? Difficulty – How hard is each question to answer? Calculated as the percentage of students who answered the question correctly. Discrimination – How well does each test question differentiate between students who perform well on the test—e.g., highest quartile—and those who perform poorly—e.g., lowest quartile? Evaluating your tests does not mean you are trying to make the tests easier. It means you are making sure each test is fair, covers material students should have experienced through your class, and consistently assesses achievement of specific learning outcomes. Learning management systems like Canvas (SCU's Camino) simplify the process quite a bit, by allowing you to review statistics related to the quiz results and even download a quiz item analysis .
    [Show full text]
  • Goodger: I Work at Google Contributing to the Mozilla Project
    Goodger: I work at Google contributing to the Mozilla project, primarily to Firefox and I continue to do the sort of the work that I’ve done for the past few years which is to play an active role in the development of new versions of Firefox from the early stages of each release cycle where we figure out what we want out of the next release through the planning, documentation and development, bug fixing and release, so a whole bunch of different things. OR: How did you come to work at Google for Mozilla? Goodger: Towards the end of 2004, we were shipping Firefox 1.0 and it was around that time that I had come in contact with several of the engineers here at Google and just was generally impressed by the enthusiasm of the people here, even over things that I thought superficially were boring tasks. They seem to make everything fun and it wasn’t long before in the process of working with them on these things that they sort of became fun for me, too, and I thought that was sort of infectious and I thought maybe after working with— working closely with the same set of people for the previous number of years which is about four years, maybe slightly more at the time, that if I were to come and work at Google I could potentially still work with those people but then also be exposed to a whole bunch of new people with different ideas and enthusiasm, so that was one of the reasons why I chose to come here.
    [Show full text]
  • Formerly Microsoft Internet Explorer, Commonly Abbreviated IE Or MSIE
    INTERNET EXPLORER Windows Internet Explorer (formerly Microsoft Internet Explorer, commonly abbreviated IE or MSIE) is a series of graphical web browsers developed by Microsoft and included as part of the Microsoft Windows line of operating systems, starting in 1995. It was first released as part of the add-on package Plus! for Windows 95 that year. Later versions were available as free downloads, or in service packs, and included in the OEM service releases of Windows 95 and later versions of Windows. Internet Explorer has been the most widely used web browser since 1999, attaining a peak of about 95% usage share during 2002 and 2003 with Internet Explorer 5 and Internet Explorer 6.[citation needed] Since its peak of popularity, its usage share has been declining in the face of renewed competition from other web browsers, and is 34.27% as of January 2012. It had been slightly higher, 43.55% as of February 2011, just prior to the release of the current version. Microsoft spent over $100 million USD per year on Internet Explorer in the late 1990s,[1] with over 1000 people working on it by 1999. Since its first release, Microsoft has added features and technologies such as basic table display (in version 1.5); XMLHttpRequest (in version 5), which aids creation of dynamic web pages; and Internationalized Domain Names (in version 7), which allow Web sites to have native-language addresses with non-Latin characters. The browser has also received scrutiny throughout its development for use of third-party technology (such as the source code of Spyglass Mosaic, used without royalty in early versions) and security and privacy vulnerabilities, and both the United States and the European Union have alleged that integration of Internet Explorer with Windows has been to the detriment of other browsers.
    [Show full text]
  • For Anyone Who Has Grown Disenchanted with Microsoft's Internet Explorer • Reviews Web Browser, Don't Click on the Blue E! Offers Help
    Don't Click on the Blue E! By Scott Granneman Publisher: O'Reilly Pub Date: April 2005 ISBN: 0-596-00939-9 Pages: 284 Table of • Contents • Index • Reviews Reader For anyone who has grown disenchanted with Microsoft's Internet Explorer • Reviews web browser, Don't Click on the Blue E! offers help. It gives non-technical • Errata users a convenient roadmap for switching to a better web browser-- • Academic Firefox. As the only book that covers the switch to Firefox, this how-to guide is a must for all those who want to browse faster, more securely, and more efficiently. Don't Click on the Blue E! By Scott Granneman Publisher: O'Reilly Pub Date: April 2005 ISBN: 0-596-00939-9 Pages: 284 Table of • Contents • Index • Reviews Reader • Reviews • Errata • Academic Copyright Preface Audience for This Book Organization of This Book Conventions Used in This Book We'd Like to Hear from You Safari Enabled Acknowledgments Chapter 1. The Problem with the Blue E Section 1.1. Long, Long Ago...in Internet Time Section 1.2. Mosaic Section 1.3. Netscape Section 1.4. Microsoft, IE, and the Browser Wars Section 1.5. A Long Shot That Paid Off Section 1.6. IE and Windows: Joined at the Hip Section 1.7. The Blue E: The Achilles Heel of Windows Security Section 1.8. The Red Lizard and Its Children Section 1.9. Where to Learn More Chapter 2. Installing and Configuring Firefox Section 2.1. Installing Firefox Section 2.2. Running Firefox for the First Time Section 2.3.
    [Show full text]