I would also be interested in helping development with GPS-related utilities. We have done quite a bit of work with SatNav systems and I definitely have some input as to the workings of a topography stack. ~mc On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 16:32, Jack O'Quin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Ken Conley wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jack O'Quin 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 > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >