Adam, In regards to speed of bringing up new packages, to what extent is the > community aware of catkin_simple ? > Is there a plan to officially release this and put it in the debs? It does > make setting up a new workspace quite a bit easier and is great for > development. (It seems perhaps nothing should be *released* this way, but a > conversion from catkin_simple to plain catkin isn't so bad, and is probably > worth the time, once you have a testable system in place.) We haven't published `catkin_simple` yet because we do not feel it is ready. Dirk and I created it in an afternoon as a proof of concept. To be ready, IMO, it needs documentation, a code review, catkin_create_simple?, tutorials, testing, a maintainer to do releases, and probably needs a better name too. This along with REP-140 ( https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/blob/rep140/rep-0140.rst) which introduces the `` tag, and my `parallel_catkin_make_isolated` tool ( https://github.com/ros/catkin/pull/330), `pcmi` for short, that I wrote recently for a non-ROS client are the three things I would like to see in Indigo to improve ease of use of the build system in ROS. For some of those things we are in the critical path (REP-140), and we will try to get them done as soon as we are able, but the other items could benefit from community help. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Adam Leeper wrote: > My last reply was rejected from the list, hopefully this isn't duplicate. > > Jonathan, your tutorials are awesome! I especially appreciate how the > catkin intro motivates and explains *why* one might want a build system and > proper dependency management. I've bookmarked your articles :) > > In regards to speed of bringing up new packages, to what extent is the > community aware of catkin_simple ? > Is there a plan to officially release this and put it in the debs? It does > make setting up a new workspace quite a bit easier and is great for > development. (It seems perhaps nothing should be *released* this way, but a > conversion from catkin_simple to plain catkin isn't so bad, and is probably > worth the time, once you have a testable system in place.) > > --Adam > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > Adam Leeper > 650.ROBOT.44 > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Daniel Stonier wrote: > >> >> Accidentally hit send, sorry. Continuing... >> >> I have watched and avoided entering alot of discussions about usability >> over the last six months. Given that they're repeating, they're obviously a >> concern to many, but it's probably time to start doing rather than talking. >> If you have time, write some code (see previous email), test every which >> way but loose and then harry Tully & co if you think it needs to be >> integrated at a more fundamental level (e.g. catkin_create scripts). I like >> seeing things like roslint which Mike and Jack have done a splendid job on. >> >> To be honest, I'd rather see William work on crazy issues like middleware >> debate than consuming inordinate amounts of oxygen and pizza in order to >> writing catkin_create scripts - that's where the average grad student or >> company engineer can help out with a bit of guidance. >> >> There is another point I'd like to bring up about usability. To me >> >> *usability* != *ease of use for beginners*. >> >> I wouldn't consider something usable if, despite being brilliant for a >> newbie, it isn't capable of doing everything that it's specified to do. >> >> I think it's very important for people to sit down and work out the >> fundamental set of things that ROS must do, make everyone aware of these >> and THEN consider how to best make ros easy to use whilst being capable of >> that fundamental set of things. Only then do you have what I'd call a >> *usable* system. Alot of 'ease of use' discussions are often unaware of >> the very important practical needs that you don't see within the first day >> (or sometimes ever depending on your work) of becoming a rosified human. >> Good examples of this include the needs of research robots vs product >> robots, embedded needs, connecting outside the robot to pc's, the lan or >> the web. This lack of awareness has a habit of diverting attention from >> whatever original discussion was started. At least some separate threads >> were made here (thanks to whoever did this!). >> >> Ok, back to the wonderful world of ROS (kicks ass on emails, although >> admittedly emails about ROS aren't so bad....)! >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel. >> >> >> On 19 February 2014 18:14, Daniel Stonier wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 February 2014 00:21, Ryan Gariepy wrote: >>> >>>> So, I actually ask "What would you improve about ROS" in every single >>>> related job interview I conduct...I've got a long list. >>>> >>>> On ROS usability itself, the largest thing which has come up has been >>>> the renewed difficulty in getting started. Even though new users are no >>>> longer being thrown into the middle of the rosmake/catkin transition, the >>>> overhead in creating a new package has increased dramatically. >>>> >>>> It's been a long time since I've used the rosmake/rospy/Electric combo, >>>> but IIRC all you needed to do was: >>>> 1) Source setup.bash >>>> 2) Call the package creation script >>>> 3) Write a .py script >>>> 4) Add the package to ROS_PACKAGE_PATH >>>> >>>> Three of those four steps are one-liners, and the fourth has >>>> near-instant gratification for the developers. >>>> >>>> Another point: ROS used to be three steps for a full install: (key, >>>> update, install), and now you need to jump through hoops for rosdep and >>>> other "noncritical yet required" items. >>>> >>>> Something else which is important to note is that the purpose of all of >>>> those above steps are easily explainable to someone who knows nothing about >>>> ROS at all, which is certainly not the case now. (ex. "Why do I have to >>>> specify basic ROS dependencies in three different locations?", "Why do I >>>> need to set up build instructions for a script I intend to run in place?") >>>> >>>> So, we've made development and installation more difficult by leaps and >>>> bounds, and now we have the potential to make the same mistake with the >>>> transport layer? >>>> >>>> IMO, we should all keep in mind that ROS is where it is in large part >>>> due to it being easy to install and get started on. I'm not saying at all >>>> that we should stop improving performance, but I am saying that we should >>>> consider the "getting started" for new developers more than we have been. >>>> Even from a personal note, it sometimes takes me longer to set up a >>>> workspace and package setup for a quick test than it does for me to write >>>> the actual code. True, I can set up templates and scripts to speed this >>>> up...but why should I have to? >>>> >>> >>> I actually think all of these issues can be very quickly remedied, >>> except perhaps for the little extra effort involved in adding a bit more >>> information to CMakeLists.txt and setup.py than there used to be. >>> >>> We even go to some of this effort internally and have a few tools that >>> make life easier for interns/engineers who aren't so familiar with ros and >>> are often only temporarily in and out of the ros team. For them getting >>> started with something like turtlebot is as easy as: >>> >>> # Pull rosinstalls located by our rosdistro like github database >>> > yujin_init_workspace turtlebot ./turtlebot >>> > cd turtlebot >>> # Create a whole bunch of useful scripts for starting konsole, >>> gnome-terminal, eclipse with sourced setup.bash >>> > yujin_init_build . >>> # Install all dependencies and compile >>> > yujin_make --install-rosdeps >>> >>> From there we also have a few of our own catkin_create_xxx wizards - >>> e.g. for java we utilise catkin_create_rosjava_package, >>> catkin_create_rosjava_library_project, catkin_create_rosjava_project. Ros >>> could definitely use some extra default catkin_create_xxx scripts and this >>> would simplify things alot for *new* users and with these, I don't see >>> it really being that much more difficult than electric. >>> >>> Perhaps this small (and it is small compared to catkin or a middleware >>> overhaul) effort should be given higher priority given the anxiety this >>> issue creates. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Thibault Kruse wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Ease of use is *critical*. We're already receiving regular feedback >>>>> > that the usability of ROS is getting worse with each distribution. >>>>> > >>>>> > -Ryan >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ryan, >>>>> >>>>> it would be interesting to hear more details about what parts of ROS >>>>> suffered usability most, and what impact this has on Clearpath Robotics >>>>> Business. >>>>> >>>>> The question about DDS was not asked by some OSRF technical underling >>>>> or >>>>> the ROS platform manager, but by the OSRF CEO. So we can presume that >>>>> the >>>>> internal discussion about DDS at OSRF is not just philantrophic idle >>>>> talk, >>>>> but more relevant to the future of OSRF itself (not just ROS). >>>>> >>>>> It seems unclear whether the loss of usability of ROS will have an >>>>> impact >>>>> on OSRF funding, or whether OSRF should invest into integrating >>>>> accepted >>>>> industry standards (like DDS) into ROS rather than improving usability. >>>>> >>>>> The loss of usability itself is a pity, but OSRF closing shop would be >>>>> much more dramatic for the future of ROS. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> Thibault >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ros-users mailing list >>>>> ros-users@lists.ros.org >>>>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ros-users mailing list >>>> ros-users@lists.ros.org >>>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Phone : +82-10-5400-3296 (010-5400-3296) >>> Home: http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/ >>> Yujin R&D: http://rnd.yujinrobot.com/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Phone : +82-10-5400-3296 (010-5400-3296) >> Home: http://snorriheim.dnsdojo.com/ >> Yujin R&D: http://rnd.yujinrobot.com/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ros-users mailing list >> ros-users@lists.ros.org >> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@lists.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > > -- William Woodall ROS Development Team william@osrfoundation.org http://williamjwoodall.com/