On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Tully Foote wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Vincent Rabaud > > 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/ >>> 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. > +1. This thread has been going for long enough to prove its interest. Adolfo. > > Tully > > >> -- >> joq >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ros-users mailing list >> ros-users@code.ros.org >> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > >