The system software essentially is defined by the ``control'' component: allowing a user to control the experiment hardware. To do this, the software must successfully interface with all of the system areas above so that the desired experiment can be run.
-\section{Development Process}
+\section{Development Process}\label{Development Process}
The development process is outlined below. Each part of the software followed the same general process, which is discussed in more detail for each section later in the report.
\subsection{Communication} \label{Communication}
The primary time for collaboration was during the team's weekly meetings. Meetings occurred at 2pm-4pm on the Monday of every week, and were generally attended by all group members. While most work was expected to be done outside this time, the meetings were valuable for planning and scheduling purposes, for tackling problems and making design decisions as a group. Team members were able to work together in the meetings to complete certain tasks much more effectively. Importantly, at the end of each meeting, a report of the work done during the prior week and a list of tasks to do the following week was produced, giving the project a continuous, clear direction.
-GitHub was used as the group's repository for software work. The usefulness of GitHub was explained previously in the ``General Development Process'' section, but essentially, it is a very effective tool for managing and synchronising a large, multi-person software project. GitHub also features a notifications and issue-tracking system, which was useful for keeping track of tasks and immediately notifying team members of any changes.
+GitHub was used as the group's repository for software work. The usefulness of GitHub was explained previously in Section \ref{Development Process}, but essentially, it is a very effective tool for managing and synchronising a large, multi-person software project. GitHub also features a notifications and issue-tracking system, which was useful for keeping track of tasks and immediately notifying team members of any changes.
Outside of meetings, email was the main form of communication. Email threads exist for all of the project's main areas, discussing any ideas, changes or explanations. Email was also used for announcements and to organise additional meetings. For less formal communication, the software group created their own IRC channel. This was essentially a chat channel that could be used to discuss any aspect of the project and for communication about current work.
At the beginning of the project, an overall software schedule was created, outlining the main tasks to be completed and their target dates. While this was useful for planning purposes and creating an overall impression of the task, it became less relevant as the semester continued. The nature of the software team's work meant that it was often changing from week to week; varying hardware requirements from other teams, unexpected issues and some nebulous project guidelines led to frequent schedule modifications. For instance: use of the BeagleBone turned out to be a significant time-sink, requiring a lot of troubleshooting due to lack of documentation; and a sophisticated login system was not mentioned until late in the project, so resources had to be diverted to implement this. Essentially, while the software group did attempt to keep an overall schedule, this was only useful in planning stages due to the changing priorities of tasks.
-Far more useful was the weekly scheduling system. As mentioned in the ``Communication'' section\ref{Communication}, a weekly task list was created on each Monday, giving the team a clear direction. This suited the flexibility of the software well; tasks could be shuffled and re-prioritised easily and split between team members. It was still very important to keep the project's overall deadline in mind, and the weekly task lists could be used to do this by looking separately at the main areas of software (such as GUI design, sensors, and so on) and summarising the remaining work appropriately. Brief weekly reports also covered what had been completed so far, providing a further measure of progress.
+Far more useful was the weekly scheduling system. As mentioned in the ``Communication'' section \ref{Communication}, a weekly task list was created on each Monday, giving the team a clear direction. This suited the flexibility of the software well; tasks could be shuffled and re-prioritised easily and split between team members. It was still very important to keep the project's overall deadline in mind, and the weekly task lists could be used to do this by looking separately at the main areas of software (such as GUI design, sensors, and so on) and summarising the remaining work appropriately. Brief weekly reports also covered what had been completed so far, providing a further measure of progress.
The group also elected a ``meeting convener'' to assist with organisation (Samuel Moore). The meeting convener was responsible for organising group meetings week-to-week and coordinating group communication. A single elected convener made this process as efficient as possible.
However, different team members had skills in other areas besides coding, and these skills were allocated to ensure that all members could contribute effectively. For instance, as some people worked on the server code, others worked on the visual GUI design; it made sense for the people who were most efficient with coding to work on those elements while others performed different tasks. Even though the software project was principally coding, there were many supplementary development tasks --- writing documentation, hardware testing, et cetera --- that were involved. Some areas of the software, such as the BeagleBone interfacing, were new to all team members and were worked on by everyone.
-On the whole, group participation was good. Team members regularly attended meetings, did the expected (often more-than-expected) work, and had a good understanding of the project. While all team members contributed significantly, some did stand out --- in this case Samuel Moore and Jeremy Tan, who performed a large portion of the vita development work. Without their input and prior experience, the project would not have been completed to such a high standard, and their extensive skills and dedication were vital to its success.
+On the whole, group participation was good. Team members regularly attended meetings, did the expected (often more-than-expected) work, and had a good understanding of the project. While all team members contributed significantly, some did stand out --- in this case Samuel Moore and Jeremy Tan, who performed a large portion of the vital development work. Without their input and prior experience, the project would not have been completed to such a high standard, and their extensive skills and dedication were vital to its success.
\subsection{Inter-Team Communication}
git.ucc.asn.au / matches / MCTX3420.git / blobdiff
UCC git Repository :: git.ucc.asn.au