On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 09:05 +0200, Jonathan Bohren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Geoffrey
> Biggs <geoffrey.biggs@aist.go.jp> wrote:
...
> ROS is old enough now that there are a lot of packages, even
> wg-spawned packages, whose owners have moved on to other things. I'm
> talking from experience on this, since I recently tried to fix what I
> considered a serious flaw in a wg-hosted package, only to find that
> the names listed in the package manifest are no longer the maintainers
> and the person listed in the stack manifest is (understandably) too
> busy to deal with my patch. I find myself blocked, and I could fork
> it, but this package is currently distributed with the debian packages
> and I think creating a new package with a new name will just lead to
> confusion and fragmentation.
I have had similar experiences waiting for patches to land.
For part of this, I think there needs to be a clearer process for
gaining commit access or forking for "core" ros packages.
While it doesn't solve the documentation issue, Debian has an
interesting approach with the idea of a "Request for adoption"
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
http://wnpp.debian.net/
Perhaps another approach would be for maintainers to avoid/remove
namespace conflicts for unmaintained packages. ie. linefollower ->
mylab_linefollower
--
Bill Morris <
bill@iheartengineering.com>
I Heart Engineering
http://www.iheartengineering.com
<3
(text/plain)