I think there is flexibility in signing up for SIGs. I just showed up at one at IROS. 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 From: ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org [mailto:ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org] On Behalf Of Kartik Babu Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:32 AM To: User discussions Subject: Re: [ros-users] Enterprise Version of ROS 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. > 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. > 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