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

[Meier Lorenz]

Hi All,

If there is interest to have Micro Air Vehicles (a.k.a drones / quadrotors) covered in the handbook, the members of the ROS MAV SIG would be interested to contribute. You can reach us via the mailing list on this website:
http://wiki.ros.org/sig/MicroAirVehicle

-Lorenz


Am 23.10.2014 um 18:21 schrieb Arkapravo Bhaumik <arkapravobhaumik at gmail.com<mailto:arkapravobhaumik at gmail.com>>:

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<mailto:jack.oquin at gmail.com>> wrote:

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




--
Arkapravo Bhaumik
http://about.me/arkapravo



_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users at lists.ros.org<mailto:ros-users at lists.ros.org>
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users