🅱🅸🅶🅾🆁🆁🅴.🅾🆁🅶Mar 24
Beautiful weather for takeoff from Presidente General Don Oscar D. Gestido International airport in Rivera area (Uruguay) “METAR SURV 241300Z 18006KT CAVOK 18/09 Q1015” : See what it means on https://www.bigorre.org/aero/meteo/surv/en #presidentegeneraldonoscardgestidointernationalairport #airport #rivera #uruguay #surv #rvy #metar #aviation #aviationweather #avgeek vl
Presidente General Don Oscar D. Gestido International airport in Rivera (Uruguay) aviation weather and informations SURV RVY

Aviation weather with TAF and METAR, Maps, hotels and aeronautical information for Presidente General Don Oscar D. Gestido International airport in Rivera (Uruguay)

Bigorre.org
RWPOINTWOMANJan 21
Flock cameras are in your area #duet #flock #flockcameras #cameras #surv...
https://youtube.com/shorts/R4HwcTYkt14?si=0q1dSYQa4FtQ02ns
Flock cameras are in your area #duet #flock #flockcameras #cameras #surveillance #neighborhood #spy

YouTube
hallvorsDec 24, 2024

Kvit jul-grensa er rett nord for oss. Vi har hålkejul. Det syner seg forøvrig at musene har begynt å åpne julepresanger. Har de hørt for mye Prøysen?

#Norsktut #jul #surv

Ollivier Robert 🇺🇦😷🌈Jun 22, 2023

Hello, people working in Aeronautical data management etc.

I just made my 🦀 #Rust data gathering/transformation framework called "fetiche-rs" public at

https://github.com/keltia/fetiche-rs

Include crates for different formats (ADS-B, ASTERIX) and different sources of information (Opensky, ASD, etc.). and a CLI application to fetch or stream data.

Warning: Highly volatile WIP :)

#ADSB #SURV #ECTL #Rust #rustlang

GitHub - keltia/fetiche-rs: Rust crates for managing Surveillance data — ingress/egress formats for ECTL

Rust crates for managing Surveillance data — ingress/egress formats for ECTL - GitHub - keltia/fetiche-rs: Rust crates for managing Surveillance data — ingress/egress formats for ECTL

GitHub
nopeNov 29, 2022
An Exploratory Study on Confusion in Code Reviews
(2021) : Felipe Ebert and Fernando Castor and Nicole Novielli and Alexander Serebrenik
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09909-5
#card_sorting #code_review #confusion #software_engineering #surv
#my_bibtex
An exploratory study on confusion in code reviews - Empirical Software Engineering

Context Code review is a widely used technique of systematic examination of code changes which aims at increasing software quality. Code reviews provide several benefits for the project, including finding bugs, knowledge transfer, and assurance of adherence to project guidelines and coding style. However, code reviews have a major cost: they can delay the merge of the code change, and thus, impact the overall development process. This cost can be even higher if developers do not understand something, i.e., when developers face confusion during the code review. Objective This paper studies the phenomenon of confusion in code reviews. Understanding confusion is an important starting point to help reducing the cost of code reviews and enhance the effectiveness of this practice, and hence, improve the development process. Method We conducted two complementary studies. The first one aimed at identifying the reasons for confusion in code reviews, its impacts, and the coping strategies developers use to deal with it. Then, we surveyed developers to identify the most frequently experienced reasons for confusion, and conducted a systematic mapping study of solutions proposed for those reasons in the scientific literature. Results From the first study, we build a framework with 30 reasons for confusion, 14 impacts, and 13 coping strategies. The results of the systematic mapping study shows 38 articles addressing the most frequent reasons for confusion. From those articles, we found 13 different solutions for confusion proposed in the literature, and five impacts were established related to the most frequent reasons for confusion. Conclusions Based on the solutions identified in the mapping study, or the lack of them, we propose an actionable guideline for developers on how to cope with confusion during code reviews; we also make several suggestions how tool builders can support code reviews. Additionally, we propose a research agenda for researchers studying code reviews.

SpringerLink