Requirement Document generator tool

[Chris Johns]

On 10/1/20 4:45 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:51 PM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/01/2020 19:31, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely on the proposed approach with Python tools.
>>>>
>>> Yes. Reading it I'm actually reminded about Google's approach toward
>>> Python which includes many of the elements mentioned. Although their
>>> guide is probably more comprehensive and verbose that what we need, it
>>> might be a useful reference for developing a set of guidelines
>>> suitable for Python code in RTEMS (mainly, rtems-tools).  Here is a
>>> link:
>>> http://google.github.io/styleguide/pyguide.html
>>>
>>> I think most of the existing style has been determined and driving by
>>> Chris Johns. So I would also give him some credit to develop/approve
>>> how we plan to use Python at a project level. (**Hands Chris an "RTEMS
>>> Python Maintainer" hat**);)
>>
>> I think the Google guide would be a good start. We can always add
>> project-specific exceptions/clarifications if necessary. My aim is to
>> use it for new code, e.g. code produced for the pre-qualification
>> activity. For the code format I strongly want to use a tool for this. I
>> don't want to spend review time on code formatting issues.
>>
>> Using standard guidelines makes the RTEMS Project more attractive for
>> new contributors and GSoC students. I think it increases your job
>> opportunities if you can refer to a successful GSoC project and it shows
>> that you used standard engineering practices in the project. This is
>> usually not something a university education includes.
>>
> OK, both points make sense. I'd be happy with the Google guide, I hope
> Chris will comment when he can.

Sorry about the erratic access. I have been knee deep in painting and flooring
this summer as I avoid any smoke from the fires we are having.

I am fine with using a standard guide however we need to review it and to make
sure it fits. As an example the C++ guide from Google had some good points as
well as some parts I did not think offered any value but did create a certain
level of pain. We should also consider capturing the guide as a public one
belonging to someone else can and will change and that effects us. I am not sure
how we could do this.

Chris