William, That's totally fair; there's a certain lack of context when jumping directly into a thread like this. In any care, I'm still looking forward to getting the whole scoop next week in Hamburg. cheers -- Bill On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, William Woodall wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bill Smart via ros-users < > ros-users@lists.ros.org> wrote: > >> Thibault, >> >> Thanks for the review. I've only been paying sporadic attention to the >> ROS2 process of late, and this was a useful reminder of the state of some >> things. >> >> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the status of ROS2 next week at >> ROSCon and, in particular, it would be great to get a response from the >> developers on some of the things in this document. As an example, rebuttal >> 1.1 says "This will eventually be okay when everyone uses ROS2.", which I >> believe, but claim 3.2 suggests that this will not happen for a "long >> time". It would be more reassuring if I had some idea of whether a "long >> time" is a few months or several years. >> >> Primarily, I worry about the community splitting in the time required to >> do the migration, and then never coming back together again. My fear is >> that everyone will pick one version to work in, and it will lead to two >> communities (perhaps academic and industrial). This would undermine one of >> the core strengths of ROS: it's community. >> >> I'll also note that the word "hopefully" appears in 40% of the >> rebuttals. Many of these have a claim of the form "I think that X will be >> a problem", and a rebuttal of "Hopefully X will not be a problem". Hope, >> as Rudy Giuliani said, is not a strategy. >> > > Bill, > > I haven't had time to respond to each of the claims (not that time wasn't > given, I just haven't had it this week). But I think it's important to > point out that all of the substantive edits to the review wiki page were > made by Thibault, including the rebuttals (there are currently 44 edits to > the wiki). He helped the discussion along by taking responses from the > mailing list conversation about the review and put them in the wiki: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/coG7Wdkbb4E > > I think that's really useful, but if you search that thread, "hope" is > only used once and it's by Thibault. So I wouldn't read too much into the > language of the rebuttals, I think that's more a mannerism of how Thibault > writes. > > That's not to say that the arguments presented there don't convey a sense > of "well hopefully this won't happen", but I also don't think that all the > rebuttals on the wiki represent the best argument against the claims. I > only have myself to blame for not getting my own rebuttals in the wiki > before the deadline. I'll hopefully have time after ROSCon add my own > rebuttals to the wiki. > > -- William > > >> >> -- Bill >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users < >> ros-users@lists.ros.org> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I would like to present a review of the strategy taken to create ROS2. >>> >>> Recently OSRF announced the release of an 'alpha1' ROS2 milestone [1]. >>> The list of missing features is still quite long. That also means some >>> opportunity to still influence decisions. >>> >>> OSRF has been promoting ROS2 at ROSCon2014 [2], and provides >>> documentation [3]. As a reminder, major goals include improving real >>> time robotics, embedded robotics, Windows-compatibility, messaging >>> over unreliable networks and multi-robot scenarios. >>> >>> All changes come at a cost, there are tradeoffs to be made. I have >>> initiated several discussions in the NG mailing list [4] to preview >>> the impact of ROS2. >>> >>> The short version is that currently ROS2 has completely separate >>> sources and requires different core tools (e.g. a buildsystem that is >>> not compatible with catkin), and many APIs have breaking changes. The >>> migration to ROS2 will take similar effort as migrating all ROS >>> packages to a different middleware. A long transition period is >>> likely. Supporting packages in parallel for both ROS1 and ROS2 will be >>> very hard. Because of the lack of backwards compatibility, the >>> transition to ROS2 will probably be a large disruption to everyone >>> using ROS (https://i.imgflip.com/rl3g1.jpg). >>> >>> The long version is here: >>> http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview >>> >>> I announced that wiki review page one week ago on the NG mailing list >>> and tried to include feedback. Thanks to all who gave feedback. >>> >>> Please use the NG mailing list for feedback about ROS2: >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros >>> >>> regards, >>> Thibault >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/B4BAQY5c3xs >>> [2] >>> http://www.osrfoundation.org/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ROSCON-2014-Why-you-want-to-use-ROS-2.pdf >>> [3] http://design.ros2.org/ >>> [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ros-sig-ng-ros >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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://wjwwood.io/ >