On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Ken Conley <kwc@willowgarage.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For me, the most convenient repository would be ros-pkg. I believe it
>> should go there eventually, so we might as well work there until the
>> new stack is ready to release. I doubt anyone at WG would oppose
>> adding a "topography" stack (or whatever we choose to call it) to
>> ros-pkg, as long as we commit to maintaining it and provide good
>> documentation. (I am willing to create or maintain a different repo if
>> y'all prefer someplace different.)
>
> We're (very) slowly moving stack development off the unified 'ros-pkg'
> repository mainly due to the fact that we prefer our kforge backend to
> the gforge backend, but that's the only (minor) pushback on using the
> ros-pkg repository.

That's useful input, Ken.

I don't know the future plans. I'm not even completely clear what
gforge and kforge mean. I see collections of project hosting software
by those names. I also see kforge.ros.org, which appears to be a
kforge site. I guess code.ros.org must be a gforge site. If so, I
agree that gforge is a bit clunky.

If the new stack will not end up in ros-pkg, then it makes no sense to
start out there. I see advantages to being hosted at WG, but only
where it fits the direction you are going.

What do you recommend?

Is kforge.ros.org a reasonable candidate?
-- 
 joq