On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Vincent Rabaud <vincent.rabaud@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I guess this whole conversation deserves a proper SIG no ? There seem to
>> be a lot of interest and several things to talk about: standards, policies,
>> reports, software. Actually, just came across an ABI / API breakage site
>> for popular open source projects :
>> http://upstream-traing I'll go to thcker.org/<http://upstream-tracker.org/>
>> Some of the ones we use in our ecosystem are there:
>> http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/assimp.html
>> http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/opencv.html
>> http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/pcl.html
>> http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/yaml-cpp.html
>>
>
> Either that, or take it to the already-existing build system SIG:
>
>  http://wiki.ros.org/groovy/Planning/Buildsystem
>  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ros-sig-buildsystem
>

The buildsystem sig is probably a good place to take this. This will need
to be integrated with the buildsystem and it has already come up in
discussions there.

Tully


> --
>  joq
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>