Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Steps to verify gold standard objects — Parallax Forums

Steps to verify gold standard objects

softconsoftcon Posts: 217
edited 2012-12-17 11:48 in Propeller 1
1. code gets submitted to the obex.
(this already happens.

2. Code is used by others.
(this already happens.

3. If someone likes the code, they click the button to add a vote for gold standard library inclusion.

4. After x number of promotion clicks
(preferrably by folks who have been members for more than 30 days or so), then it gets raised as a flag for someone to look at.

5. The group of folks who look at the code are wide and varied, and as long as some percentage of those folks (say 25%) think it's good enough, the code then gets promoted again to some other status (pending gold standard maybe?)

6. A group of folks are selected to perform the goldification process, which would include documentation, formatting, whatever else is necessary)

7. code is checked by others (not any of those who already participated in previous rounds) again to verify it meets whatever requirements there may be for final acceptance.

8. if all conditions are met, then code is inducted into the gold standard library, and there is much rejoycing.

Comments

  • softconsoftcon Posts: 217
    edited 2012-12-16 13:37
    Above is the steps posted in the what happened to the gold standard thread, asking about the gold standard, and why it got lost. These steps are my attempt to quantify what needs done to get an object accepted for gold library inclusion. I'd like feedback, arguments, complaints, agreements, whatever forum folks think is necessary to put some meat on these steps, identify if any need modified/changed, and if so, what those changes should be. The discussion in the other thread seemed to indicate that the gold standard has fallen by the wayside, for lack of conensus on what constitutes a gold object. This thread is an attempt to solve this problem. So, everyone, jump in, and let's get this ironed out, so we can see if things can be taken forward from this point. Discussions on whether or not objects need gold status should be directed to the other thread, as well as any posts relating to other components of the gold standard (who should do the steps, and so on) this one should be used for discussion steps and what order those steps should be, as well as how much each step should do.
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2012-12-16 21:50
    No one should jump in until Parallax assigns roles and formally backs the effort. If they don't want to back it, walk away. I'm serious. Without Parallax driving it, it's going to turn into a tar baby real fast. Too many people already have grand master plans for what amounts to a relatively minor project for a couple of C/PASM coders that should take a month or two to flesh out.

    And stick with C and PASM code. Remember this about having a small set of tested and documented routines to sell the P2 to commercial engineers not hobbyists. Spin has zero place in this effort.
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2012-12-17 07:35
    softcon wrote: »
    5. The group of folks who look at the code are wide and varied, and as long as some percentage of those folks (say 25%) think it's good enough, the code then gets promoted again to some other status (pending gold standard maybe?)

    The primary issue is "Good Enough" is nebulous. For this to work. there must be a concrete set of qualification that determine "Good Enough", to the extent that the evaluation is objective, not subjective, to greatest extent possible.

    Typically good enough means "testable, verifiable", and "has tests", and "passes tests as shown by these logs".
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2012-12-17 07:47
    rod1963 wrote: »
    No one should jump in until Parallax assigns roles and formally backs the effort. If they don't want to back it, walk away. I'm serious. Without Parallax driving it, it's going to turn into a tar baby real fast. Too many people already have grand master plans for what amounts to a relatively minor project for a couple of C/PASM coders that should take a month or two to flesh out.

    And stick with C and PASM code. Remember this about having a small set of tested and documented routines to sell the P2 to commercial engineers not hobbyists. Spin has zero place in this effort.

    The problem here is "what roles" do you want assigned? What work will you take on?

    The key to crafting this is to define the "roles" such that the people already doing the work are assigned the role that is asked to do that work. Any finding an inclusive way to evaluate when a role has NOT been performed sufficiently, such that it can be addressed by the same or another individual.

    Also, your evaluation about spin is incorrect. The suitability of any given software is determined by the application and the engineer, and not by you unless you are the one responsible for the work.
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2012-12-17 09:25
    Roles? Two or three competent C programmers can do the coding and documenting. If they can't do the documenting they're probably stupid and lazy and have no business on the project. You keep the team lean as possible, no more than 3 people. Inclusiveness is fine if this was a 1st grade play but it's a detriment in this instance. So what if feelings are hurt.

    Look we're looking at little more than a dozen C/PASM virtual peripherals along with some digital filters, a PID loop, etc. To demonstrate to commercial engineers the benefits of the P2. That's it. Documentation is straightforward. You don't need special software or documentation specialists - the scope of work is so simple it doesn't need it.

    Here's the bump in road - the P2 is in a raw state right now. The tools for working with it barely exist. Until Parallax gets GCC in at least Alpha state, there won't be any work done on the P2 virtual peripherals. Put simply we're a couple of months away before the Gold project can begin. The only elements that can done are routines that can be run and tested on a PC like the digital filters, PID loop, etc.

    As for me I'm not doing anything except tossing out simple suggestions. I've just been on and seen enough projects where complex processes and large teams are useful and where they are not.

    Spin is a not a selling point in the commercial world. You just might take a look at what constitutes a eval kit for a micro-controller - it includes a GCC compiler, IDE, ddebugger, IOW a complete development suite. No one and I mean no one includes a proprietary and odd ball interpreter like SPIN or even Basic for that matter.

    If you don't think so, that's fine. But the embedded world uses C, not Forth, not Basic and certainly not a screwy, proprietary language created for a single sourced micro-controller.

    This is why Parallax is spending time and money on GCC for the P1 and P2. They know they need a industry accepted tool set to sell the Prop. Not Basic, Spin or Forth.

    If you guys want to Goldify Obex, that's your call. I don't care about Obex. But there is no gain for Parallax to support doing that.The commercial side doesn't want SPIN and it's not a selling point for the P2. It will do the opposite, scare prospective customers off. It shows Parallax being disconnected from industry and hence not worth looking at. That's what happened to the P1.
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2012-12-17 11:48
    rod1963, you are very vocal about what others can, can't and shouldn't do, while being careful to not do anything yourself except hand out negative opinions.

    Can you at least let us discuss this train of thought without actively derailing the discussion? Its not like the fate of engineering as we know it hangs in the balance due to this discussion. If it turns out to be a Smile idea, you can say "I told you so". But at least give us a chance to explore possibilities.
Sign In or Register to comment.