Specs to be merged with CS_Hardware about cityscope.github.io HOT 15 CLOSED

Does this

CS_DEPLOY for naming?

mean changing the repo's name to CS_Hardware?

I've thought of this, but Hardware (which currently is (one kind of) table) deserves to focus on hardware. Like setting up the camera the right way, recommended LED panels for efficient lighting, different alternatives for the table (dominant wood version), methods in projector mounting(how many degrees of freedom is preferable),,, so forth. Where deploy is another layer more like an integration of hardware and software.

(I think CSL is kind of this, although we are seeing less adoption of this concept.)
The reasoning behind having the specification in this repo, is

1. Meta layer than CS repo's.
2. Positioned like the class definition of CSL repos, (CSL's are instances)
3. One stop introduction for the whole system

We can raise the hierarchy of the CS_Hardware repo, having a trade off for visiting two repo's to get along. what do you think?

from cityscope.github.io.

mean changing the repo's name to CS_Hardware?

The other way around: We can make CS_Hardware a one-stop-shop for deployment/setup/spec details. [eg CS_DEPLOY / CS_BUILD or any other exciting name..]
Simplicity is key here, the main reason we're having this conv. is because one could not find a 'one place' for all things 'deploy'.

I don't think we should have cityscope.github.io repo mixed with this -- to me, this is a general, high level and sort-of an internal administrative repo. CS_DEPLOY should be faced out to the world.

I also agree that CSL concept is kinda lost, but might evolve when more 'unofficial' collabs will join. CSL is more site/context specific, so I'd keep a generic CS_DEPLOY repo for the most generic form of deployment, and CSL's for specific cases.

from cityscope.github.io.

my 20 Cents, I think it's not that bad in the wiki of cityscope.github.io which is the kind of global entry point no?
Then what kind of code would we put in CS_Deploy? It looks like it's only documentation?

from cityscope.github.io.

@agrignard if so I'd merge CS_HARDWARE into here.
Although, if we want to be 'really open' to the world, a clean [eg - no code] repo that is only dedicate to 'Deploy' stuff is a bit less intimidating.
In both cases, we should have only one entry point.

from cityscope.github.io.

Well a repo with no code is basically a wiki no?

The repo would be needed for what? cad files for instances?

from cityscope.github.io.

@agrignard take a look into CS_HARDWARE; it's not code, but manuals that cannot be on wiki [cad/cam files]. cityscope.github.io repo has stuff that would not be cloned/foked if you only build a simple table.

from cityscope.github.io.

Yes that s what I saw, there is some pdf and some Cad... not really code but why not.

from cityscope.github.io.

we can always have an SDK page on the ML site ;)

from cityscope.github.io.

@yasushisakai @agrignard If there are no objections I'm merging Hardware into cityscope.github.io

from cityscope.github.io.

If it is going to be binary,
why not in the this repo's wiki's repo?
https://github.com/CityScope/cityscope.github.io.wiki.git

from cityscope.github.io.

@yasushisakai Can this hold dxf or pdf? Also, how easy it is to point someone to this as a starting point?

from cityscope.github.io.

from cityscope.github.io.

Done -- see new readme + hardware
@yasushisakai @agrignard @popabczhang @LAAP @doorleyr - please contribute to this wiki as a one stop shop for deployment. Thanks

from cityscope.github.io.

I just fix a broken link in the wiki as the repo doesn't exist anymore.
https://github.com/CityScope/cityscope.github.io/wiki/Specification-for-CityScope-system#hardware

Maybe the wiki need some refactoring according to this new modification?

from cityscope.github.io.

closing

from cityscope.github.io.