Project Naming

[MotoFab]

I might recommend following some of the practices found on the FreeEMS 1.0 board... Here's a link to my copy of what I've called Freeems 1.0.

I plucked the quote from another thread, Jared. I figured this 'naming convention' thread is a good place to ask this question.

Is Freeems 1.0 the actual end name, or is it just the working title?

Given that the board you're laying out (nice job by the way!), and the PCB CAD program, are both open source, it seems more than likely that soon enough there will be a few significant 'branches' to your initial board layout.

When someone heads up a 'branched' board layout that is significantly different than your original board, that new board can't be called Freeems 2.0, because what will later versions/revisions of your board be called?

I'm thinking that each of the various flavors of Freeems hardware and software that come down the pipe will require a unique name.

Freeems is the 'family' name The surname if you will. Each 'offspring' version of product, either hardware or software, needs a 'given' name.

But besides the naming issues caused by a non-unique name for a PCB, I'm pretty sure the family name Freeems, is Fred's.

[MotoFab]

I still think it's a good idea to use names as the primary reference for unique hardware and software. There's going to be enough problems with version and revision numbers, without also including version and revision numbers in the name.

I also still think it's a good idea to have lists of pre-approved names. That way if developers prefer, they can just choose a pre-approved name at will, without having a name-approval session.

[jharvey]

I tend to think of this as shed color, and I grow a bit less interested in the content. Well at least for the moment. For example debian sid vs lenny vs testing vs stable. The name is fairly arbitrary, and there are a limited number of characters in toy story character set. One could debate endlessly about naming convention. So far there have been two perhaps three branches that I know of off of 1.0. As long as the other developer makes it unique to their version of it, I'm fine with just about anything they call it. I would much prefer to see folks spend their time on writing code, and would prefer they don't worry about me, I can figure out their names. If you create some great content, people will remember the name.

When I took my stab at that name, I called it 1.0 because it has the bare min required to run an engine. Then 2.0 would be the next card in the stack, which would include common desirable extras. 3.0 would include advanced extras. See http://wiki.freeems.org/doku.php?id=freeems_1.0 for a picture of my thinking when I made this. Note the sketched "oops" to show how much time I took at this stab. Also I expect that my version isn't the official version. However a branch of it (or a branch of one of it's branches) may end up as the official version. There are certainly components on the 1.0 draft that are specific to my wants, and most others probably don't want.

Right now I'm less interested in renaming it because I have some local scripts and several locations that would need updating. Perhaps it could get a more revised name when it becomes an official release, rather than a development release.

[MotoFab]

Right now I'm less interested in renaming it because I have some local scripts and several locations that would need updating. Perhaps it could get a more revised name when it becomes an official release, rather than a development release.

So you don't want to follow the naming protocol, because it will require that you follow the protocol? And because you're ok with it, then it's ok?

Dude, if those were reasonable arguments you know I'd be backing you to the point of getting banned by Fred.

There's nothing wrong with 'Freeems 1.0'. Nothing except that 'Freeems' can't be used as the singular name for a specific product. And '1.0' can't be used in the product name because it's a number. Other that that it's fine. (Acourse I'm just guessing at what the exact naming rules will be.)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to go ahead with a first-pass development board the way you want it. I like your idea (I think it was yours), that until the pinout is finalized, place the processor in the middle and surround it with jumpers.

Another example is there was some issue about what type of serial protocol should be used. I don't think an RS-232 physical interface makes much sense. But at some point there will be a standard. Out of the processor pins will come serial data, after that, the wired or radio protocol can be whatever the developer wants.

A main purpose of a convention or 'compatibility standard' is that within that framework it allows maximum space for creativity. If there's a better board, or radio link, or anything, people will use it.

The Freeems child you're making needs a first name is all. It's your child, and you're the first father, that much is indisputable.

[jharvey]

I renamed what was once called FreeEMS 1.0, to a more descriptive naming convention now called DFH for Defacto FreeEMS Hardware. I have updated the wiki, and will shortly look for Fred to rename the thread about that name changing.

[Fred]

Thank you so much, Jared! :-)

Fred.