Consolidate code repo and wiki

[leif81]

This project code repository was the initial source of the tutorial. Midway through development it was copied by @mcgredonps into the project wiki (https://github.com/open-dis/dis-tutorial/wiki).

The problem is that having the tutorial docs in two places causes some confusion for readers and maintainers about which is the source of the tutorial. I can only assume the docs are out of sync already.

We need to decide which to keep (code or wiki) and then turn off (or remove) the other.

[leif81]

@brutzman @terry-norbraten are either of you familiar with the plan for the dis-tutorial repository? It appears like @mcgredonps was the primary author (based on number of commits) but there were a number of contributions from others.

I see that there is a tutorial written within the git repo markdown pages and another in the git repo wiki pages. Was it intended to be the same tutorial? Is one version newer than the other? From the dates of changes it's not obvious to me, the two copies appear to be authored roughly in parallel between 2017 and 2019. But there are significant differences between the two copies.

The git repo markdown pages were authored between Jan 2, 2017 and Jan 9, 2019 .

Whereas the wiki pages were authored between Oct 28, 2017 and March 12, 2019

My thought is it would be nice if could consolidate the two tutorials (if indeed they were intended to be one tutorial), but I don't have enough background to understand if we should straight up delete one copy and keep the other or how to proceed.

[terry-norbraten]

Leif, I agree the tutorial needs to be consolidated, clean up, and updated. As to when we’ll be able to do that from the NPS MOVES side is undetermined unless we happen to get specific funding for that task.

I know that Dr. Brutzman is looking at getting DIS 8 implemented and running sometime in the near future. That would most certainly call for an updated/current tutorial section.

r/ Terry

On Feb 23, 2023, at 09:23, Leif Gruenwoldt @.***> wrote:

@brutzman https://github.com/brutzman @terry-norbraten https://github.com/terry-norbraten are either of you familiar with the plan for the dis-tutorial repository? It appears like @mcgredonps https://github.com/mcgredonps was the primary author (based on number of commits) but there were a number of contributions from others.

I see that there is a tutorial written within the git repo markdown pages and another in the git repo wiki pages. Was it intended to be the same tutorial? Is one version newer than the other? From the dates of changes it's not obvious to me, the two copies appear to be authored roughly in parallel between 2017 and 2019. But there are significant differences between the two copies.

The git repo markdown pages were authored between Jan 2, 2017 and Jan 9, 2019 .

Whereas the wiki pages were authored between Oct 28, 2017 and March 12, 2019

My thought is it would be nice if could consolidate the two tutorials (if indeed they were intended to be one tutorial), but I don't have enough background to understand if we should straight up delete one copy and keep the other or how to proceed.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-dis/dis-tutorial/issues/21#issuecomment-1442157510, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQTJOP3K7M4SCGHCGPMWMDWY6MK5ANCNFSM5MRC6TIA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[brutzman]

There is a lot of good information in the tutorial, but it never reached fruition as a useful (recommendable) document.

We have no funding or expert availability to pursue the tutorial this year, though we do aspire to work on DIS 8.

If we might structure the tutorial information in an XML document that corresponded to PDUs and abstract classes, plus other things, then we would be able to integrate it into our code autogeneration as Javadoc, python comments, C++/C# documentation, etc. I've done this kind of thing before to good effect.

Divide-and-conquer suggestion: why don't we integrate pertinent parts directly into the XML that captures DIS7, meaning that much of it could eventually port to DIS8 autogeneration when we get there. Specifically, changing the @comment attribute (found in current XML) into @description (terse form) and @explanation (tutorial detail) might provide space to put a lot of the material into context, providing a good start on such refactoring.

• https://github.com/open-dis/opendis7-source-generator/tree/master/xml/dis_7_2012

This is a good project for someone that could encourage a number of contributions. Design is key. I'd expect that the SISO working group would let us apply blocks of prose freely since we would not be violating IEEE copyright.