[ros-users] ROS 2.0 Strategy review

Tue Sep 29 15:52:22 UTC 2015

Brian,

That's fair.  I'm personally excited by most of the stuff in ROS2,
especially since it means a new edition of the book.  :->

There *is* a bunch of grumbling out there, though.  Not necessarily
something for OSRF to act on, but definitely something to be aware of.

see you in Hamburg

-- Bill

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Brian Gerkey via ros-users <
ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:

> It's great to see this discussion happening.  I'll just add that,
> while some people from OSRF and other groups have taken the time to
> participate and may continue to do so in the future, you shouldn't
> consider this wiki page to represent anything other than the
> opinion(s) of the author(s).  If a "claim" hasn't been "rebutted" or
> "refuted," that doesn't imply that the claim has been substantiated or
> that anyone agrees with it.  To quote from our Support page
> (http://wiki.ros.org/Support#Etiquette): "If you didn't get a response
> then likely nobody has had time to answer you."
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Bill Morris via ros-users
> <ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:
> > Perhaps is makes sense to add a note in bold at the top identifying that
> > the document is a work in progress and some of the arguments are still
> > awaiting clarification and revision.
> > This note could possibly link to
> > http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview#Reviewers
> > To re-emphasise who has edited the document.
> >
> > On 09/25/2015 06:23 PM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users wrote:
> >> Indeed, sorry, I should have clarified the nature of the rebuttals. So
> >> far, the rebuttals on the wiki are written by me, trying to represent
> >> the position opposite to mine as best I understood it.
> >>
> >> I did not want to leave claims unanswered on the page when there had
> >> been arguments in the discussions, and I did neither want to wait for
> >> others to have the time nor force others to respond so I added
> >> rebuttals myself.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:43 PM, William Woodall
> >> <william at osrfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bill Smart via ros-users
> >>> <ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:
> >>>> Thibault,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the review.  I've only been paying sporadic attention to
> the
> >>>> ROS2 process of late, and this was a useful reminder of the state of
> some
> >>>> things.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the status of ROS2 next
> week at
> >>>> ROSCon and, in particular, it would be great to get a response from
> the
> >>>> developers on some of the things in this document.  As an example,
> rebuttal
> >>>> 1.1 says "This will eventually be okay when everyone uses ROS2.",
> which I
> >>>> believe, but claim 3.2 suggests that this will not happen for a "long
> time".
> >>>> It would be more reassuring if I had some idea of whether a "long
> time" is a
> >>>> few months or several years.
> >>>>
> >>>> Primarily, I worry about the community splitting in the time required
> to
> >>>> do the migration, and then never coming back together again.  My fear
> is
> >>>> that everyone will pick one version to work in, and it will lead to
> two
> >>>> communities (perhaps academic and industrial).  This would undermine
> one of
> >>>> the core strengths of ROS: it's community.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll also note that the word "hopefully" appears in 40% of the
> rebuttals.
> >>>> Many of these have a claim of the form "I think that X will be a
> problem",
> >>>> and a rebuttal of "Hopefully X will not be a problem".  Hope, as Rudy
> >>>> Giuliani said, is not a strategy.
> >>>
> >>> Bill,
> >>>
> >>> I haven't had time to respond to each of the claims (not that time
> wasn't
> >>> given, I just haven't had it this week). But I think it's important to
> point
> >>> out that all of the substantive edits to the review wiki page were
> made by
> >>> Thibault, including the rebuttals (there are currently 44 edits to the
> >>> wiki). He helped the discussion along by taking responses from the
> mailing
> >>> list conversation about the review and put them in the wiki:
> >>>
> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/coG7Wdkbb4E
> >>>
> >>> I think that's really useful, but if you search that thread, "hope" is
> only
> >>> used once and it's by Thibault. So I wouldn't read too much into the
> >>> language of the rebuttals, I think that's more a mannerism of how
> Thibault
> >>> writes.
> >>>
> >>> That's not to say that the arguments presented there don't convey a
> sense of
> >>> "well hopefully this won't happen", but I also don't think that all the
> >>> rebuttals on the wiki represent the best argument against the claims.
> I only
> >>> have myself to blame for not getting my own rebuttals in the wiki
> before the
> >>> deadline. I'll hopefully have time after ROSCon add my own rebuttals
> to the
> >>> wiki.
> >>>
> >>> -- William
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Bill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users
> >>>> <ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to present a review of the strategy taken to create
> ROS2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recently OSRF announced the release of an 'alpha1' ROS2 milestone
> [1].
> >>>>> The list of missing features is still quite long. That also means
> some
> >>>>> opportunity to still influence decisions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OSRF has been promoting ROS2 at ROSCon2014 [2], and provides
> >>>>> documentation [3]. As a reminder, major goals include improving real
> >>>>> time robotics, embedded robotics, Windows-compatibility, messaging
> >>>>> over unreliable networks and multi-robot scenarios.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All changes come at a cost, there are tradeoffs to be made. I have
> >>>>> initiated several discussions in the NG mailing list [4] to preview
> >>>>> the impact of ROS2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The short version is that currently ROS2 has completely separate
> >>>>> sources and requires different core tools (e.g. a buildsystem that is
> >>>>> not compatible with catkin), and many APIs have breaking changes. The
> >>>>> migration to ROS2 will take similar effort as migrating all ROS
> >>>>> packages to a different middleware. A long transition period is
> >>>>> likely. Supporting packages in parallel for both ROS1 and ROS2 will
> be
> >>>>> very hard. Because of the lack of backwards compatibility, the
> >>>>> transition to ROS2 will probably be a large disruption to everyone
> >>>>> using ROS (https://i.imgflip.com/rl3g1.jpg).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The long version is here:
> >>>>> http://wiki.ros.org/sig/NextGenerationROS/StrategyReview
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I announced that wiki review page one week ago on the NG mailing list
> >>>>> and tried to include feedback. Thanks to all who gave feedback.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please use the NG mailing list for feedback about ROS2:
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>>   Thibault
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/B4BAQY5c3xs
> >>>>> [2]
> >>>>>
> http://www.osrfoundation.org/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ROSCON-2014-Why-you-want-to-use-ROS-2.pdf
> >>>>> [3] http://design.ros2.org/
> >>>>> [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ros-sig-ng-ros
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> William Woodall
> >>> ROS Development Team
> >>> william at osrfoundation.org
> >>> http://wjwwood.io/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20150929/95852112/attachment.html>