[IGDA LCPP] Re: A very small part of the first draft of the TDD
- From: "Jim Verhaeghe" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:55:55 -0000
Dean,
I meant what compiler environment will be used (Such as .NET 2003, etc.).
Perhaps it would be better to make a separate document that is just a white
paper on how to build our project. We could just throw that on the site in
Wiki format and leave it at that.
Jim Verhaeghe
Contract Game Developer
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dean Butcher
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:49 AM
To: igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IGDA LCPP] Re: A very small part of the first draft of the TDD
Hi Jim
Your points have been noted and the document will be amended
accordingly, just one little question though. In and earlier email to
the list you had specified
[quote]
I'm not concerned with the development environment. Ultimately I want to
read this and be able to understand what you guys will be doing to make the
game given the resources you have.
[/quote]
I had assumed that this meant that such detail as how to compile and
the other specifics of the development environment should be omitted,
that's why I'd left it out of the document. This has left me a little
unclear as to what exactly should be left out about the environment?
Cheers Jim!
Dean.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:08:23 -0000, Jim Verhaeghe <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
>
> No worries mate, just make sure we can export the document as a word
> document. Ultimately for putting it up as a Wiki (you'll have to forgive
> me, I haven't played with Wiki that much), I think it should be a living
> document. So we don't continually post updates, but update the document
> that is on the site, hopefully with some source control so we can go back
to
> look at the previous versions if necessary. Let me know if I am just
> blathering like an idiot and correct me!
>
>
>
> As for the TDD, it is a good start guys. A couple things are:
>
> Kunal's name has disappeared from the authors (credit everyone)
> I like the new approach to the function descriptions with the bullet
points,
> very nice.
> There was a section describing how to get the SDK working with the
project,
> but it has been removed. I'd put it back in, as it seemed helpful.
> When using terms like SDK, make sure the first time you use it you use the
> entire name (i.e. Software Development Kit (SDK)). Then the next time you
> just need to use SDK. This way, those who aren't familiar with the term
> will have seen it and understand what it stands for. It may behoove us to
> put in a glossary section at the end as a reference for those who missed
the
> initial use of the acronyms.
> Big thing is be consistent (somewhat related to 4). In the SDK set up
> section there was a start to using the full name, however it is backwards
to
> all other references like in later in the document. It was "SDK (Software
> Development Kit)", and later there was "heads-up display (HUD)." I prefer
> the latter, as it highlights the acronym.
> Add a question/pitfall section, and just throw as many questions in there
as
> you can think of, then start removing them once they have been
> satisfactorily answered.
> Please use left justify only. (This is more a matter of personal
preference,
> but when the text is spaced inconsistently it bothers me, and that happens
> quite frequently when using filenames, etc. as we do in technical
> documents.)
>
>
>
> That is pretty much it. I'd say we are about 30-40% done. I know it is a
> lot of work, but keep plugging away. Hopefully you'll be finished by next
> meeting.
>
>
>
>
> Jim Verhaeghe
>
> Contract Game Developer
>
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Michael Lloyd Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [IGDA LCPP] Re: A very small part of the first draft of the TDD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not to burst your bubble, but the UML idea may not be the right way to go.
> Assume you are going to be sending this document to several people at a
> publisher, so you want a format that everyone can easily use (without
having
> to download viewers, etc).
>
> I think have UML diagrams will still be useful, even if not for the TDD.
> Plus we can export to GIF, and embed into the document.
>
>
>
>
> I'll look at the document today and give my 2 pennies worth. Also, if you
> are looking at a way to have it as a living document, we should put it up
on
> the Wiki site so all can work on it there, rather than send it around via
> email (as it is generally less protected).
>
> By that do you mean uploading lots of Word docs, or using a Wiki page?
>
> If the former, I'd pref. to use SCM software over lots of revisions of a
> word document with the version meta data encoding into the file name[1].
>
> [1] As an x-BeOS user I have a aversion to placing Meta data in the
> filename ;-)
>
> -- Michael Lloyd Lee * M: mlk@xxxxxxxxx "He who makes
> no mistake* W: http://j2mevnc.sf.net Never makes anything"* A:
> 474c High Rd, E10 6QA
Other related posts:
