To be fair, Fuerte was late as well, and the reasons that drove Fuerte to be late also fed into a longer cycle for Groovy. The continued growth of ROS creates scaling issues-- it takes a significant effort to keep the thousands of package in ROS even compiling together, and the changes in Fuerte/Groovy were meant to make this easier in the future. It would be nice to appreciative of these efforts. - Ken On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Thibault Kruse wrote: > On 18.02.2013 19:10, Yamokoski, JD (JSC-ER)[OCEANEERING SPACE SYSTEMS] > wrote: > >> Software as complex and as large as ROS will have some bumps and bruises >> at a major release - but from the outside looking in, it appears as though >> too much was changed in this release (as evidenced by the above plus the >> longer than normal release cycle). >> > After Tully's response I'll add some comment to this now. Please consider > also the following facts. Up to fuerte, ROS releases were managed by Ken > Conley, who left for Google as announced in April 2012. So release > management switched hands (I am not implying Tully is less capable, but I > do know he has had several other dominant assignments at Willow Garage). > > Also, in 2012 employees also left Willow Garage for spin-offs like > Industrial Perception, OpenPerception OSRF and HiDof, as well as other jobs. > > So among the people that left ROS world in 2012 are: Ken Conley, Troy > Straszheim, Radu B. Rusu, Eitan Marder-Eppstein, Wim Meeussen, E. Gil > Jones, Stu Glaser, Bhaskara Marthi (in random order). I would also count > Brian Gerkey as being absent from the ROS world 2012 as far as ROS > engineering goes, because building up OSRF itself seems to have been a lot > of work with also a strong focus on Gazebo. If you don't know those names, > you'll find most of them in this list of all time ROS contributors: > http://www.ohloh.net/p/ros-**pkg/contributors?query=&sort=**commits(though that list does not span all of ROS, and needs updating for the > switch to github). This does not count non-Willow Garage staff that moved > away from the ROS world, such as PhD students being now finished and taking > up jobs outside the ROS world. > > Also note many of the poeple I listed left ROS world without doing any of: > - Announcing their departure to the ROS community > - Nominating successors as maintainers for the packages they maintained, > or declaring the packages unmaintained > - Handing over issues assigned to them in issue trackers > > Those ROS contributors also held a lot of knowledge about their packages > and the ROS toolchain that had in the past been useful to prepare and > validate previous releases, this knowledge was not available for the Groovy > release. I can only guess that hiring and training new talents with such > high fluctuation of key members of the ROS team cannot be expected to go > smoothly. > > So the problems you noted as well as the release date slippage are not > (only) due to too many changes in the Groovy release. > > ______________________________**_________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/**listinfo/ros-users >