I totally think github is a good idea. I personally hate the UX of google groups.

 

You could possibly make a C-Bot subreddit

 

seconded. i think subreddit and a github repo are the best things. as this build gets so much more popular.

plus Github's 3d model viewer is actually amazing

 

Threw a quick poll together vs quasi voting via this forum. Feel free to add options and hit create poll. If you add options or create the poll, post the updated link.

Straw Poll

I'd be glad to help out with github, not a expert but I've some experience managing repos and teams.

 

FWIW here is a link to a working NodeBB install I just threw together.

Home | C-Bot.io

My preference would be to house all the source files (STEP, 123dx, STL, etc...) in Github and use NodeBB or something similar to manage the posts / information. It lets us have a cool domain too if we want (cbot.rocks, c-bot.io, cbot.club) are all available and cheap

If you are playing with NodeBB and want to be an admin just ping me or make a post asking for it and I will hook you up.

 

I too am happy to help with whatever, I am a very senior developer / technical strategist by trade (in case that wasn't obvious by now) and I have managed large github teams and repo's as well.

 

github does have the advantage of history, changelogs, and branches-- something that the openbuilds file area doesn't do well.

I also agree there are better forum systems out there, but most of them require someone to admin them-- one of the reasons I didn't mention reprap forums is that the system is badly overloaded, but no one's willing to take on the project of migrating it to new hardware/software.

I consider google groups to be less evil than having to run my own BBB. I gave up that particular pain decades ago.

I'm somewhat ambivalent towards reddit-- granted, I've never bothered setting up an account, but I find it easier to track discussions on google groups.

So consider my vote "google groups + github".

 

@grat - Re: admin and pre-made. Agree with both for the same reasons. I feel it's up to Carl, but I'd help out wherever needed.

I updated the straw poll if folks want to make use of it. Choose whatever solutions you'd like, it allows for multiple choice.

Straw Poll

 

Totally. I want to get the system that Carl likes the best and will help this community grow and thrive. I will help wherever and am more than happy to help with admin stuff if need be.

From a development perspective creating an interactive BOM and build guides would be easier on a custom system than something like reddit or google groups.

 

Ha! I've had some talks with Carl offline about doing just that. Agreed it would be easy on a custom system and really useful. But IMHO, that's a side project that can be made available to those that want to use it. Just like my custom hotend mount generator. That said there is nothing stopping you from spinning up whatever you'd like. I'd help out, would be a fun project. However the default system of record should be simple to keep the barrier to entry low. Again all just my opinion.

 

@Carl I got my brass lead screw nuts today but unfortunately, your reworked mount is too small for the ones I got. I redid your mount to accommodate the larger flange on my nuts (24.5mm). If you want to add it to the reworked files, you are welcome to it. Here is a link to the nuts I got...

Brass Nut for use with TR8*8 2MM Pitch 4 Start Lead Screws Cobblebot 3d printer

 

AAAAAhhhhh.... : I'm guessing this is a bug with their web interface: Repetier Firmware has an online configuration tool where you can upload an existing configuration.h file, tweak it, then download the results. A (negative) side effect (I finally found out) is it resets the thermistor assigned to your extruder temp sensor: I manually set this via Arduino IDE:
EXT0_TEMPSENSOR_TYPE 8
After an upload to the configurator & re-download, without touching that setting, it was:
EXT0_TEMPSENSOR_TYPE 14
Setting it back to 8 removed all the above problems. Word to the wise...

 

Put it on GitHub, please.

 

I created an empty repo on github, ill create a structure and put the files in it tonight after work if no one else has done that yet.

GitHub - Sk8rSeth/C-Bot: a repo for Carl Feniak's C-Bot 3d printer build

if anyone has an issue having that repo started under my name, just say so, and we can move it to wherever you guys want

 

ok i just roughly added in Carl's files and stuff so we can start to get some structure and more of how it looks and works on github. @Carl Feniak please feel free to change anything in there, and/or tell me to stop using your stuff as an example.

i think this is actually a really good place and system to get all the different C-bot variants in one place, and easily distributed to other people. not sure if thats what makes sense for a project like these, but i like the idea so far

 

@Sk8rSeth - thanks for setting this up. I will make a fork and send over a PR for stuff from the generator.

 

i know thats how i have my build sectioned off, but i didnt want to impose too many rules on how people did their own builds so i just left it at a required 'parts' section, and left it up to each user to section out their parts how they will.

i think its a great idea to enforce some sort of standard here, but i didnt want to overstep or put off people from contributing.

 

How about having a readme.md that explains what is needed from an overall perspective.

Have a default base build in one directory and then substitute components broken out by printer component.

So base Carl build in basic complete build directory, then another directory for contributed. In the contributed you break out by component and then by creator. Let each creator manage their parts and explain what basic component their stuff replaces.

You could also add a contributed complete build section as well.

 

okay, that way people can contribute completed builds OR just parts. i like it, but we would need to decide on a specific naming convention too, that way all the parts and filenames are consistent and easy to read.

maybe something like

{your_name}{original_filename_its_replacing}{version#?}.stl

 

i prefer '.' over underscores, and spaces are generally a bad idea, since they require escaping out when typing in terminal/command line.

i set up the file with '.' delineating breaks in files, and _ used as a replacement for spaces
ex.
V-Wheel_Spacer(x16).CarlFeniak.v1.stl

i think thats a great way to structure the filenames. ill implement it into the readme.

how are you guys feeling about folder structure?
ill change it all up in a new branch and see if i can straighten things out. i guess you guys could just fork/clone the repo and structure it however you want to instead of trying to explain it in a forum post lol

but for now, ill remove the C-bot prefix to carls files that are already in the repo, ill change the readme and perhaps the filenames to reflect this structure, then ill move into my own branch for a while and tweak all this stuff while im at work today

ill also use your folder structure for the 'rework stls' as the template for the rest of the parts folders structure as well, just to keep it consistent and i think how you have broken that out is pretty good

 

@Carl Feniak Just noticed that the cut formula in your Excel file is missing row 21. Also for some reason when I added row 21 I had to switch from SUM to SUMPRODUCT to keep it working

 

OK-- I apologize, but I'm going to put my developer hat on for a moment, take a deep breath, and a long pull of an alcoholic beverage.

Now that that's settled, the whole point of github is to be able to take advantage of git. Git understands authors, and branching, and history, so duplicating that in the filename is completely.... wrong.

There should be a master branch, which contains Carl's view of the C-Bot-- after all, it's his project that we're all benefiting from. The structure of that branch is largely up to him, but I'd probably have a documentation folder, then a folder for parts, possibly broken down by collection. Whether to split it at a high level for editable parts (123d, dxg, step, whatever) and printable parts (STL files), or to split each sub-directory, I'm not sure-- personally, I'd probably make that split at a high level.

If I want to contribute pieces and parts that I think are cool, that should be either as a pull request to Carl, or I get my own branch (triple C-Bot, D-Bot, etc, would have their own branches).

Whoever is responsible for their branch can tag their release(s) with version numbers, so if if I want version 1.3 of the mythical C-Bot by Billy Joe Bob, I can check out that branch and that tag. If I've got an improvement to Carl's C-Bot, I can submit the request to him, he can review it, and if he wants, he can add that to the master repo (at which point the files changed by my will show up in the log as being changed by me, even though it's Carl's C-Bot branch).

Please, if we're going to put this on github, let's try to do this as an actual developmental repository. Used correctly, git is a fantastic way to collaborate. Used wrong, we might as well be using an FTP server.

 

Personally, I don't think github.com is the right place for something like this. Grat points out several good points. We don't need a version control system. We need a file repository. Maybe set something up with Google Drive or Dropbox. Things could be organized via a directory structure and then we can use the filename format described earlier.

 

@Sk8rSeth, @Carl Feniak, @grat - Take a look at my Directory_Structure Branch. I believe it allows for better flexibility and cleaner implementation. Plus it allows one person to own and update everything in one spot. I am going for the self contained approach to allow for easier Pull Requests.

In regards to version in the filename, I agree it doesn't belong there and ignores what GIT can do. That said there are reasons for allowing multiple iterations all bundled up in one directory structure. Think of it as variations instaed of versions. That said, I agree I don't believe a version number belongs in the filename, take a look at the structure I have setup and you can see where the variation can be made in the directory structure itself.

 

Where is this branch?

 

GitHub - croadfeldt/C-Bot at Directory_Structure: a repo for Carl Feniak's C-Bot 3d printer build

 

Actually, I think a version control system is *exactly* what we need. The problem is, what was being proposed was duplicating several key features of git in the filename, in such a way that would make taking advantage of git's functionality very confusing at best, and nigh impossible at worst.

I think Chris is headed in the right direction, although it might make more sense to use full branches for contributed designs.

Then again, I use git extensively at work, so I may be looking at every problem through git-tinted lenses.