Re: [ros-users] ROS Release Timeline

Thanks everyone for your input. It seems that we've built a consensus
here. If you have any other input please do so soon. We will start to
write this up as a modification of REP 003.

The last item which I just want to confirm is that we talked about planning
for Hydro release in July. From reviewing the possible dates, we'd like to
propose setting a release date of the 29th of July, which would mean a beta
freeze June 29th. And this would encompass the packages in desktop full,
plus any others released in time.

Tully


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM, William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org
> wrote:

> There is a vast amount of ROS that is regularly used on workstations (off
> robot), and beginners will often pick the default Ubuntu. So as long as we
> aren't talking about only supporting 32-bit, I don't see the controversy.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Pavel Kirienko <
> pavel.kirienko.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > ubuntu.com still recommends 32-bit for their desktop default download.
>>
>> However, they recommend 64-bit for Ubuntu Server (
>> http://www.ubuntu.com/download/server), so this is controversial:
>> shouldn't ROS be mainly targeted for embedded systems, where Ubuntu Server
>> seems more relevant?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pavel Kirienko.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, William Woodall <
>> william@osrfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> They recently discussed dropping 32-bit support for PCL on the
>>> pcl-developer's list, but I'll point out what I said to them, which is that
>>> ubuntu.com still recommends 32-bit for their desktop default download.
>>> So at least for now, I think 32-bit support should stay.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Tully Foote <tfoote@osrfoundation.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Related to this it has been suggested to me that we could setup a
>>>>> bidding/kickstarter style campaign for different platform or arch support.
>>>>> If people are interested we could estimate what it would take to support
>>>>> builds on extra arch/platform combinations for the duration of a release.
>>>>> And if there is enough community support to fund the project we can turn
>>>>> on specific architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also we are currently building i386 and amd64, we could consider
>>>>> dropping i386 on some platforms to save resources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward, I suspect most PC users will be 64-bit, and the main
>>>> 32-bit platform will be ARM. That may be true already. Perhaps people would
>>>> favor substituting some common ARM platform for i386.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look at the results of both surveys and the above
>>>>> proposal and give your feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 It's a good plan, balancing a great many divergent needs.
>>>> --
>>>> joq
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ros-users mailing list
>>>> ros-users@code.ros.org
>>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Woodall
>>> ROS Development Team
>>> william@osrfoundation.org
>>> http://williamjwoodall.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ros-users mailing list
>>> ros-users@code.ros.org
>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users@code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> William Woodall
> ROS Development Team
> william@osrfoundation.org
> http://williamjwoodall.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>