To avoid any confusion, I think taking action on this issue should wait until after the implementation is complete and we are satisfied that we are ready.
The 101SMC2 designation is, to me, confusing in its own right, as the thing that this repo/daemon are actually here to modify is the controller (whose part number I do not have memorized), not the stage itself (though there are some assumptions built in, eg that it is 250 mm).
And this relies on wright group specific hardware (though it is openly licensed, the circuit board has modifications not reflected in the .pcb file)
I do not think we necessarily need to rename the repo as a whole, but I think the daemon would be better reflected by a name that was not just the part number of the stage. (we could find ourselves at some abstract future using the same interface for other hardware)
I do think this should be done before #6, however.
To avoid any confusion, I think taking action on this issue should wait until after the implementation is complete and we are satisfied that we are ready.
The 101SMC2 designation is, to me, confusing in its own right, as the thing that this repo/daemon are actually here to modify is the controller (whose part number I do not have memorized), not the stage itself (though there are some assumptions built in, eg that it is 250 mm).
And this relies on wright group specific hardware (though it is openly licensed, the circuit board has modifications not reflected in the .pcb file)
I do not think we necessarily need to rename the repo as a whole, but I think the daemon would be better reflected by a name that was not just the part number of the stage. (we could find ourselves at some abstract future using the same interface for other hardware)
I do think this should be done before #6, however.