Perhaps is makes sense to add a note in bold at the top identifying that the document is a work in progress and some of the arguments are still awaiting clarification and revision. This note could possibly link to http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview#Reviewers To re-emphasise who has edited the document. On 09/25/2015 06:23 PM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users wrote: > Indeed, sorry, I should have clarified the nature of the rebuttals. So > far, the rebuttals on the wiki are written by me, trying to represent > the position opposite to mine as best I understood it. > > I did not want to leave claims unanswered on the page when there had > been arguments in the discussions, and I did neither want to wait for > others to have the time nor force others to respond so I added > rebuttals myself. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:43 PM, William Woodall > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bill Smart via ros-users >> wrote: >>> Thibault, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. I've only been paying sporadic attention to the >>> ROS2 process of late, and this was a useful reminder of the state of some >>> things. >>> >>> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the status of ROS2 next week at >>> ROSCon and, in particular, it would be great to get a response from the >>> developers on some of the things in this document. As an example, rebuttal >>> 1.1 says "This will eventually be okay when everyone uses ROS2.", which I >>> believe, but claim 3.2 suggests that this will not happen for a "long time". >>> It would be more reassuring if I had some idea of whether a "long time" is a >>> few months or several years. >>> >>> Primarily, I worry about the community splitting in the time required to >>> do the migration, and then never coming back together again. My fear is >>> that everyone will pick one version to work in, and it will lead to two >>> communities (perhaps academic and industrial). This would undermine one of >>> the core strengths of ROS: it's community. >>> >>> I'll also note that the word "hopefully" appears in 40% of the rebuttals. >>> Many of these have a claim of the form "I think that X will be a problem", >>> and a rebuttal of "Hopefully X will not be a problem". Hope, as Rudy >>> Giuliani said, is not a strategy. >> >> Bill, >> >> I haven't had time to respond to each of the claims (not that time wasn't >> given, I just haven't had it this week). But I think it's important to point >> out that all of the substantive edits to the review wiki page were made by >> Thibault, including the rebuttals (there are currently 44 edits to the >> wiki). He helped the discussion along by taking responses from the mailing >> list conversation about the review and put them in the wiki: >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/coG7Wdkbb4E >> >> I think that's really useful, but if you search that thread, "hope" is only >> used once and it's by Thibault. So I wouldn't read too much into the >> language of the rebuttals, I think that's more a mannerism of how Thibault >> writes. >> >> That's not to say that the arguments presented there don't convey a sense of >> "well hopefully this won't happen", but I also don't think that all the >> rebuttals on the wiki represent the best argument against the claims. I only >> have myself to blame for not getting my own rebuttals in the wiki before the >> deadline. I'll hopefully have time after ROSCon add my own rebuttals to the >> wiki. >> >> -- William >> >>> >>> -- Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users >>> wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I would like to present a review of the strategy taken to create ROS2. >>>> >>>> Recently OSRF announced the release of an 'alpha1' ROS2 milestone [1]. >>>> The list of missing features is still quite long. That also means some >>>> opportunity to still influence decisions. >>>> >>>> OSRF has been promoting ROS2 at ROSCon2014 [2], and provides >>>> documentation [3]. As a reminder, major goals include improving real >>>> time robotics, embedded robotics, Windows-compatibility, messaging >>>> over unreliable networks and multi-robot scenarios. >>>> >>>> All changes come at a cost, there are tradeoffs to be made. I have >>>> initiated several discussions in the NG mailing list [4] to preview >>>> the impact of ROS2. >>>> >>>> The short version is that currently ROS2 has completely separate >>>> sources and requires different core tools (e.g. a buildsystem that is >>>> not compatible with catkin), and many APIs have breaking changes. The >>>> migration to ROS2 will take similar effort as migrating all ROS >>>> packages to a different middleware. A long transition period is >>>> likely. Supporting packages in parallel for both ROS1 and ROS2 will be >>>> very hard. Because of the lack of backwards compatibility, the >>>> transition to ROS2 will probably be a large disruption to everyone >>>> using ROS (https://i.imgflip.com/rl3g1.jpg). >>>> >>>> The long version is here: >>>> http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview >>>> >>>> I announced that wiki review page one week ago on the NG mailing list >>>> and tried to include feedback. Thanks to all who gave feedback. >>>> >>>> Please use the NG mailing list for feedback about ROS2: >>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> Thibault >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/B4BAQY5c3xs >>>> [2] >>>> http://www.osrfoundation.org/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ROSCON-2014-Why-you-want-to-use-ROS-2.pdf >>>> [3] http://design.ros2.org/ >>>> [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ros-sig-ng-ros >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ros-users mailing list >>>> ros-users@lists.ros.org >>>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ros-users mailing list >>> ros-users@lists.ros.org >>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>> >> >> >> -- >> William Woodall >> ROS Development Team >> william@osrfoundation.org >> http://wjwwood.io/ > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@lists.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users _______________________________________________ ros-users mailing list ros-users@lists.ros.org http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users