On 8/23/2012 12:59 PM, Michael Haberler wrote: > Am 23.08.2012 um 17:49 schrieb Kent A. Reed: > >> On 8/23/2012 3:07 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: >>> As for dicing and slicing the codebase, I would think this wouldnt just be >>> beneficial for the issue at hand, but also for spelling out the >>> dependencies clearly, and 'selling' parts of LinuxCNC to other users, >>> increasing use and community reach. For example, spinning out the HAL, >>> RTAPI, component infrastructure, component compiler, and maybe the generic >>> interface part to a new messaging scheme would be a boon to folks doing >>> embedded outboard devices. Right now that is tightly integrated into the >>> code base so few people stumble upon the fact that RTAPI/HAL is a very >>> generic vehicle (which is in fact very well designed, kudos). Even I would >>> need some time separating it out and make sure the recombined projects dont >>> fall on their face. >> Michael: >> >> I believe embarking on a restructuring process is justified on technical >> grounds alone and I support the idea. On the other hand, the "selling >> and spinning out" part of this paragraph reflects sentiments I've seen >> in several other messages on our lists and it concerns me. While there's >> nothing wrong with "unlocking value," as the financial markets like to >> put it, I hope the one clear goal is always to make a better LinuxCNC. >> It's great if other benefits can accrue in the process but let's not let >> them become the goal itself. As you say, we don't want the recombined >> projects to fall on their face.* >> >> We're all reasonable people so nothing can go wrong? Maybe, but history >> is replete with stories of good technical projects that fragmented when >> they expanded their goal to be all things to all people. > Mission creep is always a problem. <...>
It wasn't mission creep so much as mission decimation I'm concerned about. But never mind. We can't plan for all contingencies. Heck, we can't even name them. We just have to be vigilant that LinuxCNC keeps moving forward. > As for Linuxcnc3, I think it would be foolish to start such effort without a > clear, stated intent, and actually a very simple, understandable one. Lets > call it a mantra. > > As far as I am concerned, I've not condensed it into a single 'Caber Feidh' > type battle cry, but among my goals would be: Where else but the Internet could an American throw a financial market metaphor at an Austrian (yes?) and have the Austrian allude to Hinduism and throw back a Scottish Highlands metaphor, all in a discussion of software integration. I'm ready to paint my face blue :-) > - simplify, simplify, simplify - take out the guru factor (can we say 'the > impenetrable kitchen sink of motion'..) > - regularize interfaces, and make them combinable in new ways (why cant we > have layered components, say a homing comp, which USES motion to move, and > which you could dump if you dont like it?) > - go back to Unix roots (why is it that we cant have a readable file of > motion commands, cat that on a motion device, and the machine moves? NB: we > have NO way of sensible regression testing motion and motion-type vehicles > due to that) > - get rid of some old assumptions which turned out to be too restrictive. Fix > the infrastructure first, then cut and shake up. > > Thats pretty much it for me, large enough goal I'd say. Simplifying is hard > enough. Whoa, this is great. I like it all but especially the "old assumptions" item, which looks like it would be the first to tackle (if you, Michael, say it enough times I'm sure we'll all "get it"). As a bonus, I think it plays right into the "simplify" item. > --- > > sorry for the mission creep from the original thread theme, though ;) Just change the subject line and drive on! Let the IETF protocols sort it out (re- the current thread discussion on emc-users). > - Michael Regards, Kent PS - in the interest of full disclosure, I am not going to be a core code developer. If I'm lucky I may be able to contribute something useful in user-space software (I'm still noodling about a second attempt at my HAL-configuration graphing program). However, for much of my professional life, I supervised engineers, programmers, and students in a variety of technical projects, some very successful, some I'd rather not talk about. My "nose" tells me the direction you are suggesting is a good one, so I keep piping up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
