search

labrad / pylabrad

python interface for labrad
52 stars 31 forks source link

LabRAD wiki #21

Closed aransfor closed 10 years ago

aransfor commented 10 years ago

It would be helpfull if we could copy the wiki stuff from the pylabrad wiki to the LabRAD organization wiki. i am willing to do this if it is ok with the martinis people

ejeffrey commented 10 years ago

That is fine with me.

Evan

On 07/26/2014 06:46 PM, Anthony Ransford wrote:

It would be helpfull if we could copy the wiki stuff from the pylabrad wiki to the LabRAD organization wiki. i am willing to do this if it is ok with the martinis people

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21.

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

pylabrad and labrad aren't the same thing. Why copy parts of the pylabrad wiki to the labrad wiki?

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ejeffrey notifications@github.com wrote:

That is fine with me.

Evan

On 07/26/2014 06:46 PM, Anthony Ransford wrote:

It would be helpfull if we could copy the wiki stuff from the pylabrad wiki to the LabRAD organization wiki. i am willing to do this if it is ok with the martinis people

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21#issuecomment-50253329 .

Daniel Sank Department of Physics Broida Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93117 (805)893-3899

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

A few more thoughts.

  1. It is bad to duplicate information. Please do not copy anything from here to the LabRAD wiki. Moving information may be in order, but please don't copy.
  2. In principle, it makes sense to move the entire pylabrad repository to the LabRAD organization rather than the MartinisGroup organization. We should discus whether we want to do this. I have never been involved with a software effort with lots of people who can't actually talk to one another in person, so I'm a little nervous about putting pylabrad in a place where the contributor pool could get very large. I mean, this would be great, but we would need some ground rules about code review, etc.
  3. Cephalopods are really cool.
ejeffrey commented 10 years ago

Well, I think the purpose of the "LabRAD" project is more about "I am a scientist and I want to use LabRAD" rather than the technical distinction between the labrad protocol and the python implementation.

That said, I agree duplicating information is undesirable. You can always link one wiki to another (check to see if github has a special syntax for this). We should also probably just open up the wiki write permissions to more people -- whether we do that by moving stuff to the LabRAD organization or by opening up martinisgroup/pylabrad repo I don't care.

Evan

On 07/26/2014 07:07 PM, Daniel Sank wrote:

pylabrad and labrad aren't the same thing. Why copy parts of the pylabrad wiki to the labrad wiki?

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ejeffrey notifications@github.com wrote:

That is fine with me.

Evan

On 07/26/2014 06:46 PM, Anthony Ransford wrote:

It would be helpfull if we could copy the wiki stuff from the pylabrad wiki to the LabRAD organization wiki. i am willing to do this if it is ok with the martinis people

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21#issuecomment-50253329 .

Daniel Sank Department of Physics Broida Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93117 (805)893-3899

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/martinisgroup/pylabrad/issues/21#issuecomment-50253583.

aransfor commented 10 years ago

I agree with the lack of duplicate documentation. Although having one localized resource will be really helpful to all (3) groups extensively using labrad as well as any new groups who wish to start. The labrad organization wiki seems like a good place if it involves multiple groups contributing.

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

Ok, given the discussion so far, I don't see what part of the pylabrad wiki should be moved. The stuff on pylabrad is pretty particular to pylabrad.

The LabRAD wiki could use

  1. The protocol spec.
  2. A getting started HOWTO. This would undoubtedly involve using pylabrad, and so should probably link to a getting started howto in the pylabrad wiki, as Evan suggests.
  3. An illustration of common use cases.

Also, Anthony, there are about fifteen groups using LabRAD :)

Dan

aransfor commented 10 years ago

15! what other groups? If we link to the pylabrad wiki then perhaps we can have wiki aaccess as there is a lot of pylabrad getting started stuff on the labrad wiki

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

Groups I know about

  1. UCSB: Martinis
  2. UCSB Song-I Han
  3. Wisconsin: McDermott
  4. Lincoln Labs: Oliver
  5. MIT: Orlando
  6. Harvard: Lukin
  7. UCLA: Campbell
  8. Berkeley: Haeffner
  9. Zhejiang: Wang
  10. Zhejiang: Yin
  11. RIKEN: Yamamoto
  12. Tokyo: Yasu Nakamura's
  13. NICT: Semba

I forget the others.

If we link to the pylabrad wiki then perhaps we can have wiki aaccess as there is a lot of pylabrad getting started stuff on the labrad wiki

I'll try to make time tomorrow to browse the LabRAD wiki and get a feel for what's what.

pomalley commented 10 years ago

I actually think it might be worthwhile to have a space that's specifically for LabRAD tutorials and getting up to speed, and another one that's about the details of the API implementation in python, etc. A "basic" and "advanced", I suppose.

That said, there's no reason they can't be on the same wiki, and I wonder if the benefits of having everything easily accessible in one place might outweigh the benefits of having everything technically correct in terms of "this is LabRAD" vs "this is pylabrad" (though of course those distinctions are important once a user moves beyond the beginner stage). But if its easy to link between wikis then maybe technically correct is the best kind of correct.

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

I think the right way to do this is to have the LabRAD wiki give the startup HOWTO. This would almost certainly be written assuming the user is using pylabrad, although I really do think the distinction should be stressed from the outset. The people at Harvard use LabVIEW clients, and others may do the same, so we don't want to give people the wrong impression that LabRAD is pylabrad.

Where users may be interested in details, the LabRAD wiki should link to external resources, eg. to pylabrad.

pomalley commented 10 years ago

I'm inclined to agree with you, but there's a whole lot of stuff that has already been written on the LabRAD wiki (https://github.com/LabRAD/LabRAD/wiki) that would need to be moved. It also means that the LabRAD wiki itself would only be one page--a startup how-to--so why have that wiki at all? Everything that a user actually does with LabRAD is going to be with one of the APIs.

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

there's a whole lot of stuff that has already been written on the LabRAD wiki that would need to be moved

Sounds easy.

It also means that the LabRAD wiki itself would only be one page--a startup how-to--so why have that wiki at all?

Woah, not true. We need the LabRAD spec, a list of APIs and links to their pages, a startup HOWTO, a page indicating how clients/servers are expected to behave (a.k.a. things to think about as you implement LabRAD in your favourite language), and probably more stuff I haven't thought about.

DanielSank commented 10 years ago

The reorganization is now under way, so I'll close this issue.