Brian, That's fair. I'm personally excited by most of the stuff in ROS2, especially since it means a new edition of the book. :-> There *is* a bunch of grumbling out there, though. Not necessarily something for OSRF to act on, but definitely something to be aware of. see you in Hamburg -- Bill On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Brian Gerkey via ros-users < ros-users@lists.ros.org> wrote: > It's great to see this discussion happening. I'll just add that, > while some people from OSRF and other groups have taken the time to > participate and may continue to do so in the future, you shouldn't > consider this wiki page to represent anything other than the > opinion(s) of the author(s). If a "claim" hasn't been "rebutted" or > "refuted," that doesn't imply that the claim has been substantiated or > that anyone agrees with it. To quote from our Support page > (http://wiki.ros.org/Support#Etiquette): "If you didn't get a response > then likely nobody has had time to answer you." > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Bill Morris via ros-users > wrote: > > Perhaps is makes sense to add a note in bold at the top identifying that > > the document is a work in progress and some of the arguments are still > > awaiting clarification and revision. > > This note could possibly link to > > http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview#Reviewers > > To re-emphasise who has edited the document. > > > > On 09/25/2015 06:23 PM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users wrote: > >> Indeed, sorry, I should have clarified the nature of the rebuttals. So > >> far, the rebuttals on the wiki are written by me, trying to represent > >> the position opposite to mine as best I understood it. > >> > >> I did not want to leave claims unanswered on the page when there had > >> been arguments in the discussions, and I did neither want to wait for > >> others to have the time nor force others to respond so I added > >> rebuttals myself. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:43 PM, William Woodall > >> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bill Smart via ros-users > >>> 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 > >>>> 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/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@lists.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >