Update projects/

[Joedang]

So, rather than trying to do shenanigans with Jekyll, I think it's better to leave the structure of the site as-is and just update the content in the markdown files. (I wonder who could have told me that already...)

Maybe "someday" things can be set up so that all the project descriptions aren't all in one file. I wanted to do a top-down approach, tweaking the page layouts to allow each project to be its own file, with the super/sub-project structure mirroring the directory structure... but I've made no progress with that, so bottom-up it is!

Questions to be answered

• Which projects are dead or irrelevant?
  • Should we have a separate page for "past projects" or should they just be removed? All projects should be marked as "active" or "inactive" in the list
  • How do I view the issues I've raised on other repos, lol? I'm not sure which "Is this dead?" messages went unanswered. I guess I'll just go through the list again.
• Which things from the meeting notes count as super/sub-projects? See below conversation.
  Presumably, Oresat is a super-project, much like the LV2 hardware was a super-project, for example.
  • Does OreSat count as a PSAS project? I mean, it has its own website, so does it go on the PSAS website? Yes.
• Do we really need all those horizontal rules? They seem to make the source files a lot more cluttered without adding much ease-of-reading to the rendered site. No, adding h-rules in markdown is inevitably inconsistent and makes the markdown harder to read. h1, h2, and h3 headings now automatically get h-rules of decreasing weight.
• Is the ToC really necessary? Yes, it totally is.
• Which new projects need those fancy language and build-status tags?
• Should the stuff from LV2 be removed? Presumably, we are no-longer working on anything LV2 related. No, it should just go to the bottom of the page and be tagged as 'inactive' or 'deprecated'.
  • Which LV2 projects are being carried over into LV3?

Things to be done

Presumably, there will be more items on this list, depending on how the above questions turn out.

• Make a whitelist of projects that are definitely not dead
  • Projects that have given updates in the meeting notes since the new year
  • Projects that have had a commit since the new year
  • Poke the people involved with all the listed projects
    • Follow up on which projects did not respond to "Are you dead?" messages.
      Most of the issues asking if a project is active/inactive went unanswered (unsurprising). I'm going to leave them open, just in case someone is being lazy.
• Bug people involved in newer projects about what they might want mentioned and if they need those tags for language and build-status.
• If people say they know a particular project is dead, add it to a blacklist. I haven't heard anything, but it would be good to ask, once I have a draft of the projects page.
• Restructure the headings in the projects list to fit the new distribution of projects.
• Begin adding projects from the tables below. Anything marked with "N" still needs to be added. Remember to mark things with "Y" once they've been added.
• Add the OreSat repos!
• Rearrange the nav bar tabs. (See below.) (Can we insert the rockets/ content into projects/ without copy-pasting?)

Criteria for success

• Get one or two new peeps to read it to see if it makes sense.
• Scroll through the project headings during a meeting to see if anyone complains that their stuff isn't listed.

Active Projects

(This should be editable by anyone.)
These projects should be marked as active.

project name	added?	notes
telemetry	Y
launch tower	Y	should be double-checked for compatibility with LV3
countdown	Y	should be updated for LV3
procedure book	Y	This may need to be updated for LV3.
launchtower-comm	Y	Glenn says Paul is working on this.
flight-director-table	Y	Glenn says Miles is working on this.
GPS	Y
CG RCS	Y	needs more description
liquid engine analysis	Y	Should be combined with 100km-design and renamed LV4-design?
lv3.0-airframe	Y	replaced LV3-design
DxWiFi	Y	Relevant to LV3 and OreSat, even though one of the repos is inactive.
psas.pdx.edu	Y	Obviously, we should keep this.
publicity	Y	Why doesn't this have a README?! (and why can't I add an issue for that?)
blog	Y	Should link to the actual blog, not the repo.
recovery + eNSR	Y
electric feed system	Y
composite tanks	Y
Rocketview	N
Liquid fuel engine	Y

Inactive Projects

These projects should be marked as inactive.

project name	added?	notes
360 camera	Y	repo: sw-cad-airframe-lv2.3; 360 cam might one day be relevant to LV3
LV3 Design	Y	superseded by lv3.0-airframe. It might actually be nice to finish this document and update what's there to a current description of LV3.
roll-control	Y	superseded by the cold gas RCS
cylindrcal patch antennas	Y	There are no plans to add patch antennas to LV3... It also links to an empty repo. (Should the other antenna repos be submodules of the main psas/antennas repo?)
stm32	Y
av3-fc	Y
elderberry	Y
psas_packet	Y
camera-automation	Y
avionics-cad	Y
commander	Y
Carbon Fiber	N	Should become "LV3 hardware" and be a superset of lv3.0-airframe, eNSR, lv3.0-recovery, etc.

[hmarie2]

Joe, This is awesome!! We can definitely go over your status, updates, and any remaining questions at Sunday's leadership meeting. Good luck! Marie

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:47 AM Joe Shields ***@***.***> wrote: So, rather than trying to do shenanigans with Jekyll, I think it's better to leave the structure of the site as-is and just update the content in the markdown files. (I wonder who could have told me that already...) Maybe "someday" things can be set up so that all the project descriptions aren't all in one file. I wanted to do a top-down approach, tweaking the page layouts to allow each project to be its own file, with the super/sub-project structure mirroring the directory structure... but I've made no progress with that, so bottom-up it is! Questions to be answered - Which projects are dead or irrelevant? - Should we have a separate page for "past projects" or should they just be removed? - Which things from the meeting notes count as super/sub-projects? *Presumably, Oresat is a super-project, much like the LV2 hardware was a super-project, for example.* - Do we really need all those horizontal rules? They seem to make the source files a lot more cluttered without adding much ease-of-reading to the rendered site. - Is the ToC really necessary? Yes, it totally is. - Which new projects need those fancy language and build-status tags? - Should the stuff from LV2 be removed? Presumably, we are no-longer working on anything LV2 related. - Which LV2 projects are being carried over into LV3? Things to be done *Presumably, there will be more items on this list, depending on how the above questions turn out.* - Make a whitelist of projects that are definitely not dead - Projects that have given updates in the meeting notes since the new year - Projects that have had a commit since the new year - Poke the people involved with all the listed projects - Bug people involved in newer projects about what they might want mentioned and if they need those tags for language and build-status. - If people say they know a particular project is dead, add it to a blacklist. Criteria for success - Get one or two new peeps to read it to see if it makes sense. - Scroll through the project headings during a meeting to see if anyone complains that their stuff isn't listed. Whitelist *(This should be editable by anyone.)* project name added? Blacklist project name added? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQWmfabpCT9-rrh2kpEXQj8-t7GipUykks5rcvPzgaJpZM4MBrHd> .

-- Marie

[Joedang]

It might be better to have a "past projects" section/page, rather than just nuking everything from LV2.3... That a lot a neat stuff to not brag about.

[glennl]

I strongly agree, and expect Joe might just be planning on moving anything not spoken for to an "old" or depricated area? - Glenn

…

On Feb 18, 2017 2:03 PM, "Joe Shields" ***@***.***> wrote: It might be better to have a "past projects" section/page, rather than just nuking everything from LV2.3... That a lot a neat stuff to not brag about. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2tbBCHU_ed9ga0bvyVf-Hdw3aU5Avbks5rd2qdgaJpZM4MBrHd> .

[Joedang]

Yes he/I is/am.

[7deeptide]

I also strongly agree. Any repos that are part of our current workflow should be included in "current projects" regardless of when their last commit was. Besides bragging rights, past projects might be of use to someone in the community so we should add and highlight a past projects section and/or page with slightly more contextual narrative in the project description than is currently the case.

[7deeptide]

@natronics @Joedang @andrewgreenberg Also, on the broader topic of project organization, should we have a consistent scheme for repo organization/hierarchy? For instance, should we merge the various composite airframe/liquid propulsion/LV mission design/etc. repos to make organizational heirarchy apparent from the repo structure, or should that be left to the projects page on the website?

[Joedang]

IMO, merging repos together might make it harder to find things. I also don't think it would benefit us much organization wise. Like, if the airframe and test stand/liquid engine were together, I think I would just work on a different branch, since changes to the airframe don't really affect the test stand/liquid engine (and vise versa). But, maybe that's the "proper" way to use Git anyways.

Maybe it would make sense to have an "psas/current" repo with all the repos as submodules, but I feel like that would be just as good as the list on the website (and probably harder to maintain too).

[7deeptide]

I think I've precipitated a misunderstanding. I wasn't proposing that we merge all current repositories. I'm asking what makes the most sense as hierarchical levels for projects and repos for organization purposes. A criticism I often hear from newcomers to PSAS is that they can't make sense of PSAS's projects from looking at our github structure, or that they don't know where to find information about a project that may be divided amongst several git repos.

LV3 or LV4 as organizational levels is possible, but I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be very useful. However, liquid propulsion, or composite airframe could be useful levels. For instance there are several composite airframe repos (4?). I would definitely propose merging some of these...

[Joedang]

Yeah, I still don't really know how the ECE/CS type stuff is structured. Like, it seems that there are some things which are inactive but still relevant, so you couldn't get a good idea of the relevant projects just by looking at github.com/psas.

I kind of wonder if it would be useful to tag the different projects with "ME", "ECE", "CS", "Capstone", etc., since it seems like a lot of new people come in saying "I'm a <major> major, so I'd like to work on a <major> project." It might also be neat if there's a way to show the last-updated date for a repo, similar to how the build statuses are shown.

I was imagining I'd organize it into something like this:

• Current projects
  • LV3 hardware
    • Carbon fiber fuel tank
    • Electric fuel pump
    • Airframe
    • Recovery system / eNSR
    • RCS
  • LV3 electronics
    • Launch tower computer
    • (This is a spot where the blurred line between PSAS/LV3 and OreSat gets awkward. Like, isn't OreSat part of LV3 i.e. the flight computer?)
    • LGR
    • Power board
    • DxWiFi
  • LV3 software
    • SDR GPS
    • Rocketview
  • LV4 / research
    • Liquid fuel engine
    • Test Stand
• Past projects
  • LV2 hardware
  • LV2 electronics
  • LV2 software

[7deeptide]

EFS and CF Propellant Tanks are for LV4 not LV3. Liquid-engine-analysis is kind of a misnomer at this point as it has little to do with liquid propulsion per se, really what it encompasses is LV4 conceptual design. Regarding LV3 avionics, I think that it's ok to link to Oresat repos in the PSAS projects page where applicable, but it should be clear where those repos fit into the LV3 con ops/work breakdown structure. Maybe the project pages would benefit from some block diagrams?

On the topic of the horizontal rules, I agree. Could they just be replaced with some added whitespace?