On Oct 23, 2014 7:50 AM, "Rich Mattes" <
richmattes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Dave Coleman <davetcoleman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > but something that's badly needed from Clearpath's perspective is a
modern take on what the parts are which make up a typical ROS robot.
>>
>> Its unfortunate that creating better online ROS wiki documentation isn't
more prestigious or having any monetary reward as a book does, because in
this day and age that is what ROS, and most software projects, really need.
I've put a good amount of effort into editing the wiki but it does get
tiring. Perhaps having better author attribution on the ROS wiki's
conceptual pages would be more motivating.
>>
>
> Would it help to create a documentation SIG? Would there be enough
interest in one to keep it going? I'd imagine such a SIG could coordinate
to:
>
> * Explicitly document ROS conventions, providing references to REPs where
appropriate (base_link and map frames, coordinate systems, naming schemes,
etc.)
> * Transition useful conventions to REPs where appropriate
> * Identify common ROS use cases and create tutorials for them as Mike
suggested
> * Update existing tutorials when new ROS releases come out
> * Update existing tutorials to be more useful in general
> * Poke package maintainers and developers for {more,better,any}
documentation of their packages
>
> A lot of the above exists already scattered around the wiki, but I think
a concerted effort to tie it all together and fill in the blanks would be
beneficial. If there's interest, I can set up a mailing list, SIG wiki
page, and get things started.
+1
_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
(text/plain)