(I can't find a better channel but please feel free to move this to a more appropriate one.)
I'm wondering if using *rosinstall* still makes sense as the naming convention of the files that are typically passed to `wstool`. Reason being:
- Those files together with `wstool` don't install, instead they are used for downloading repositories IMO.
- By `wstool` being ROS-independent tool, those files together with wstool can be used for downloading non-ROS repos.
- After all, the are the files that are passed to `wstool`. I assume *rosinstall* came from the tool that was previously used.
- So using something like "wstool" makes more sense, e.g. `.wstool`?
(Note: my experience is highly `wstool`-intensive. I'm not aware of any other active usecase of *rosinstall* files.)
I suggest updating documentation incl. tutorials, but the core document of his naming is [REP 126](
http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0126.html). I can open an MR to update the rep that if that makes sense.
This is just a convention so I don't think existing usecases get affected even if we change the REP etc.
I've seen new experienced engineers who recently started working in ROS-related projects getting confused due to this.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/1) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)