Why are these goals (transport/build system) dependent on each other?
Doing ROS1.5 as an interim release seems like lower risk and less work.

On 09/29/2015 05:17 PM, Mike Purvis via ros-users wrote:
>> Note here that all the goals that OSRF presents are perfectly achievable
>> using a different strategy: ROS1.5. ROS1.5 means building nodes that talk
>> via the ROS1 protocol, but are built using ROS2 infrastructure and
>> libraries.
>
> Another view of "ROS1.5" would be where APIs (especially the C++ API) are
> maintained even as the underlying transport and serialization is changed
> around, an improved node/nodelet/launch scheme is developed, etc.
>
> I support the DDS direction, but it does seem to be an all-or-nothing
> affair, and that's one of the biggest bummers about it.
>
> M.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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