Understanding open source communities and code review processes

(moving all my stuff from Wordpress to Blogger)

For a better understanding how open source projects work, I took a look at a couple of free licensed packages available for Linux. In general I had a look at how the code is made available and how to make your own contribution. Furthermore, to grasp how bug fixes work, I picked a solved issue from each project as an example.

rawtherapee

http://rawtherapee.com/

License: GPLv3

Raw Therapee is a raw image editing tool, packed with many useful features. The project has a forum with a sizable amount of active users that seem to be contributing constantly. Their source code, as well as the bug tracker are available on Google code.

The one issue I looked at in particular was submitted Dec 2, 2013, it was due to a raw image from Nikon D610 not being processed properly. The submitter appeared to be mostly a user, as they did not participate in the discussion. One of the project owners commented 3 days later stating that raw images from the particular camera (in this case Nikon D610) were not supported yet. However a project contributor jumped into the conversation proposing a solution. After a few back and forths between the two, the solution was implemented that same day. The entire process was well organized and easy to follow.

qtractor

http://qtractor.sourceforge.net/qtractor-index.html

License: GPL

Essentially Qtractor is a audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer. The project code can be found on sourceforge, where you can make contributions to the project, whether it’s with enhancements or bug fixes.

The issue I observed involved an error with copying and renaming a clip, when pasting the renamed clip, the program didn't seem to register the name change. A solution followed the same day, but created another slight problem with the names appearing dim on some of the clips. The discussion was between the creator of the ticket and one of the contributors who worked on fixing both issues. The exchange took place over the course of 8 days, at the end of which the ticket was closed and the bugs were fixed. In this case the entire process was also very organized and easy to understand.

In both examples I chose to look at, both issues were attended to almost immediately and the communication between the users was active and clear. The only drawback I found with Raw Therapee bug tracking process is that there were not links to the changes being made during the discussion.