[ros-users] Interest and proposal intention survey for a ROS Handbook

[Arkapravo Bhaumik]

Hello everyone,

An engaging discussion. Good idea, the only problem I see in it is that ROS
is just too dynamic to be confined to a Handbook, and this is why probably
we do not have enough tutorials for every topic/package. A Handbook which
works good for the current 2-3 distributions (say, Indigo, Jade and
K-turtle) will not be of much use later (around mid 2016) - so, we are
looking at at least a new edition of the Handbook every 30 months. Though
this can be somewhat avoided if the Handbook aims at 'using ROS' than
'exhaustively documenting ROS'.

Metaphorically speaking - ROS is like running water, you can never step on
the same water twice. I guess some Greek philosopher said that.

All said and done, a hardbound volume on ROS from Springer with crisp pages
will surely make it to my bookshelf (and clearly burn a hole in my pocket).
:-)

Regards,

Arkapravo

On 23 October 2014 20:52, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 23, 2014 7:50 AM, "Rich Mattes" <richmattes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Dave Coleman <davetcoleman at 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 at lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>


-- 
*Arkapravo Bhaumik*
http://about.me/arkapravo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20141023/3df7d161/attachment.html>