An initial proposal for review

[Madhusudan C.S]

Hi Daron,

Thanks a lot for spending your precious time in going through the proposal.

Comments/corrections to proposal:
>
> Project Details:
> -- paragraph 3 - "...providing methods separate methods..."


Corrected.


>
>
> Deliverables:
> -- 1st line of page 3 - "corresponding to each of the implementation."
> "implementation" should be plural.
>

Done

Project Schedule:
> -- 1st and 2nd points - "Baseline Testing" and "baseline testing"
> -- only use "baseline testing"
> -- 2nd point - "Algorithms" should not be capitalized
> -- 4th point - omit the word "currently"
> -- 5th point - "implementation of new class" should be "implementation
> of the new class."


Done.

-- 7th point - your first sentence is awkward. In the last sentence,
> "how to" should be "how-to".


Aah, I am not getting a better sentence, will work out.

-- 8th point - punctuation at the end (comma and period)
>

I think this is a problem with pdf, I am not sure which one you are pointing
to. Can you please mention it here?

On a general note, I'm not sure that the object-oriented terminology
> (class, abstract class, methods) is strictly correct in the context of
> RTEMS development. Sure OO ideas are prevalent in RTEMS, but there is no
> innate support for those concepts from the development tools.


Exactly while I was going through the code, I felt the same too. I
completely agree that the use of these terminologies is not very apt in
RTEMS context, but the terms class and methods are used in the project ideas
page in the wiki too. But definitely the use of the term abstract class wont
fit in RTEMS development context. Can you please suggest me what are the
better terms that can replace these terms.

Looks good, though... well done !
>
>
Thanks again. But one request. You have done a thorough review. But you have
not commented on any of the technical parts as such. Is my proposal clear
technically. Is this what you(RTEMS) are expecting from a student who works
on this project. Since many parts are taken from the wiki description, what
is your take on this? Does this proposal project that I have done enough
work on RTEMS and code structure. As I was away for a while due to some
problems, I was not able to do lot of discussion with you people which I had
planned, before coming up with the proposal. So please comment on the
technical feasibilities too.

Also my friends who did a non-technical review for me said that I have used
too many "I"s. They asked me to keep this proposal neutral as much as
possible. Can you please give your suggestion on this?

Most important thing is that the proposal is now nearly 11,000 characters,
but Google has imposed a restriction of 7500 Characters. So I am struggling
a lot to cut down the proposal by 3,500 characters. Can you please tell me
which part of the proposal needs heavy tailoring??



-- 
Thanks and regards,
Madhusudan.C.S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080326/2cd2279c/attachment.html>