[ros-users] resolving open REP-0122 issues

[Jack O'Quin]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Thibault Kruse <kruset at in.tum.de> wrote:
> Hi, in reply to both Tully's and Daniel's posts:
>
> On 07/25/2012 03:58 PM, Tully Foote wrote:
>>
>> We are coming up on the freeze, however this discussion and features are
>> important enought that we can also consider changing the deadline.  In the
>> last release we had a dual push first to release Fuerte and then to release
>> Precise support.  Pushing it back to be syncronized with Ubuntu's release
>> could allow us to avoid the double push and do it at the same time.  (This
>> is much better as you only need to iterate through the whole ecosystem once.
>> )
>
> +1 to this, or are we not voting?

Something as important as moving the release date deserves its own
thread. Tully raised it here because it affects how many build
improvements we can do for Groovy. Ultimately, it's up to him as
release manager, but community input seems helpful.

So, +1 for me, too. As Tully said: the misalignment of Fuerte and
Precise caused trouble for almost everyone.

I would like to see a basic groovy/catkin build published as soon as
possible, so we can spend some extra time smoothing the rough edges
that inevitably accompany any fundamental change. A lack of time for
that probably caused many of the difficulties people experienced with
Fuerte.

> On 07/25/2012 04:56 PM, Daniel Stonier wrote:
>>
>> I think rather than trying to hang on to what was there, a better way to
>> approach the problem is to identify what we valued and proceed to work out
>> how to retain that value in catkin.
>
> Here are my votes for my valued things map:
>
> FHS compliance:          +1
> Supporting out-of-source builds (install target):    +1
> Derecommending in-source-build environments:       -1
> CMake/python based build system:           +1
> Dropping the concept of stacks vs. packages:   -1
> Dropping support for manifest.xml based building and indexing:    -1
> Dropping the stack/package relationship in installed layouts:   -1

+1 to all Daniel and Thibault said about these issues.

> The following is why I think so:
> [...]

Thibault wrote a wonderful summary of the reasons for those
requirements (it needs no repetition).

I want to start working with Dirk's prototype as soon as possible; I
expect it will continue to evolve, that's OK. Others who are concerned
about this transition should join in. We cannot reasonably expect him
to anticipate all the diverse needs of the ROS community. Please join
the buildsystem SIG (and mailing list) and help make this transition
smoother:

 http://ros.org/wiki/groovy/Planning/Buildsystem
-- 
 joq