[ros-users] ROS versioning & wiki structure

Mike Purvis mpurvis at clearpathrobotics.com
Mon Nov 24 16:39:26 UTC 2014

Some of what you want already exists:


The corresponding wiki tutorial pages are spotty, though— sometimes they
suck in sources directly from raw.github links, other times it's pasted in.
It also doesn't seem clear whether the tutorial wants you to recreate the
package from scratch, check it out as source and fiddle with it.

I'm not certain that every package should have a companion X_tutorials
package, though. What about packaging the tutorials right within the
package? The only risk there is of tutorial binaries or launchers needing
additional dependencies (say, rviz).

On 24 November 2014 at 11:29, Miquel Massot Campos <miquel.massot at gmail.com>

> +1 to mix and match wiki-editable with source-controlled wiki content.
> For the tutorials I'd like to discuss a solution that has come to my mind.
> Let's keep it simple with the tools available. Why don't we just make
> tutorial packages with example source code? Therefore, the documentation
> could parse if that package ends in "*tutorials*" it must be added to the
> documentation of the parent package. Furthermore, the build dependencies
> will be kept and the sources can be built in the current buildfarm (debian
> package generation is not necessary). There are some packages that are
> structured like this: ros_tutorials, navigation_tutorials,
> geometry_tutorials...
> However, what if a developer wants to write tutorials without fully
> compilable code? I think that the tutorials can be placed in the .
> *roswiki* file along with the package documentation as well as in
> compilable *pkg_tutorials*. Another mix&match.
> Miquel Massot
> miquel.massot at gmail.com    <https://github.com/miquelmassot>
> 2014-11-24 16:42 GMT+01:00 Mike Purvis <mpurvis at clearpathrobotics.com>:
>> The ideal IMO would be to implement this as a macro— so much as the wiki
>> today displays the manifest.yml information generated from doc jobs, the
>> wiki of tomorrow could have a macro which sucks in a similarly-extracted
>> file.
>> This allows the flexibility to mix and match wiki-editable content where
>> that is appropriate with blobs of source-controlled content, where *that*
>> is more appropriate. It also offers a sane migration strategy.
>> The really, really ideal would be if the "mytutorial1.roswiki" file in my
>> repo could actually optionally be itself a templated affair, perhaps
>> supporting a format like mytutorial1.rowiki.em, so that things like blobs
>> of example source code or whatever could be sucked in from marked-off
>> sections of actual working examples which can then be tested during the
>> source build.
>> On 24 November 2014 at 10:18, Jonathan Bohren <jonathan.bohren at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 3:38:46 AM Miquel Massot Campos <
>>> miquel.massot at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In my opinion, maintaining a repo and the documentation in two
>>>> different sites is a bit confusing. One often makes changes to the
>>>> repository without remembering how the roswiki entry was done, thus
>>>> breaking the completeness or correctness of it. As most of us are
>>>> developing on GitHub, would it make sense to have a document in each of our
>>>> repositories "*something.roswiki"* so that the documentation generator
>>> pastes it into the roswiki?
>>> I agree. The wiki is broken, and package documentation should reside in
>>> the packages wherever the code is hosted.
>>> Unfortunately, as Dirk said, "whatever change you propose must be
>>> implemented by someone."  So, I'm asking directly:
>>> What resources does OSRF have to re-work the ROS wiki pages for packages
>>> and tutorials in a way that simply aggregates documentation from package
>>> source repositories?
>>> -j
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ros-users mailing list
>>> ros-users at lists.ros.org
>>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users at lists.ros.org
>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20141124/178796ad/attachment.html>

More information about the ros-users mailing list