[Nut-upsdev] reassessing the HCL ratings scale
clepple at gmail.com
Sat Jun 25 21:57:47 UTC 2016
Here is our current rating scale for the HCL:
1 = protocol based on reverse engineering
2 = based on fragments of publicly available protocol
3 = based on publicly available protocol
4 = vendor provided protocol
5 = vendor provided protocol and hardware
I was going to suggest a few changes to the ratings we have assigned (for instance, not having a rating of "5" with an "experimental" tag, and increasing the ratings of the Tripp Lite models which they tested in-house against NUT), but I wonder if we should redefine the scale a bit. After all, just because a vendor provides hardware or a protocol spec doesn't automatically mean that the end-user experience will be satisfactory.
Any thoughts? At the very least, I would like to differentiate between "should work" and "really does work", possibly replacing 4 and 5.
While we're on the topic of the HCL, I also think it might be handy to list some of the more common vendors at the top of the "Manufacturer" filter dropdown. Suggestions for criteria would be appreciated.
clepple at gmail
More information about the Nut-upsdev