Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

[email protected] · Wed, 23 Nov 1994 13:01:21 -0700

Nick writes:

> Firstly I am sure single letters will not suffice in the long term.
> 
> Secondly whilst accelerator sites are fairly independent (and so having
> different release numbers for each site make sense), astronomy sites
> are not! Thus RGO and ROE have site letters, R and E, but they develop
> software for many end users, including our site, which supports two
> telescopes, each of which has different software architectures. In
> future we will support a third telescope, Gemini (site letter G). What
> I want to ensure is that software developed at other sites slots neatly
> into our release when it arrives. Having separate releases does not
> address this, and I think that we may have to think more about it,
> particularly the astronomy sites.

And, of course, to complicate matters, portions of RGO and ROE will be doing
development for Gemini whose site distribution (x.xx.G.x) is controlled
by the Tucson International Project Office. Not to mention the vast numbers
of controls and instrument work package developers located at distinct sites.

I agree that a single letter is not enough. I think we could already have
a conflict for 'R' - what will the RHIC use for example? I propose we use the
entire site/project name or common abbreviation: 
	LANL
	ANL
	CEBAF
	 :
	GEMINI
	KECK
	JCMT
	UKIRT
	:

Peregrine

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System