Also, If one did not sign up for the SIG's when Fuerte Planning was
announced, is it possible to do so before ROSCON?

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Edwards, Shaun M. <sedwards@swri.org>wrote:

> Is there already a SIG that would consider this topic or do we need to
> form a new one?  Is there a set time for SIG meetings at ROSCON?
>
> Shaun Edwards
> Senior Research Engineer
> Manufacturing System Department
>
>
> http://robotics.swri.org
> http://rosindustrial.swri.org/
> http://ros.swri.org
> Southwest Research Institute
> 210-522-3277
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org [mailto:
> ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org] On Behalf Of Jack O'Quin
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:58 AM
> To: User discussions
> Subject: Re: [ros-users] Enterprise Version of ROS
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Edwards, Shaun M. <sedwards@swri.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't want to limit ROS development by imposing backwards
> compatibility
> > requirements.  As ROS and associated libraries become more mature we
> could
> > then impose backwards compatibility requirements.
>
> In my view, the REP process defines interfaces that are mature enough
> to persist across multiple releases and implementations. We should use
> that to inform compatibility expectations.
>
> > I think what you point out is certifying versions of ROS will require
> > significant amounts of testing development effort.  The hope would be
> that
> > the testing software component would not have to be reworked every time
> we
> > decide to created a certified version of ROS, thereby imposing some sort
> of
> > backwards compatibility requirement.  There is certainly a balancing act
> > that we as a community need to maintain so that we can have certified
> > versions of ROS with commercial acceptance as well as freedom to change
> and
> > develop ROS as needed to meet research objectives.
>
> Well said. I was working on formulating similar thoughts when I saw your
> post.
>
> I would add that none of these issues are particularly new or unique
> to ROS. They mostly boil down to the high costs of testing and
> maintenance. Operating systems have been dealing with these for many
> decades.
>
> There are several open source models we could emulate. I think the
> Ubuntu LTS approach is worth considering: maintaining matching sets of
> Ubuntu LTS versions (Lucid, Precise) and ROS "LTS" distributions (TBD)
> for several years.
>
> Running and developing compliance tests is a really big job. The QA
> group will need to define its scope carefully. Doing that in a shared
> community is one of the strengths of open source development.
>
> This is an important discussion, worth a SIG meeting next month at ROScon.
> --
>  joq
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>