[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [General] Discussion on ROS to ROS2 transition plan

[Thibault Kruse]

> In the end, I think that the question of limited resources might be the most powerful one. If 
> Open Robotics has N hours to work on ROS, how many should they spend on ROS1 and 
> how many on ROS2. If we need M hours of work to make ROS2 viable, then the math is 
> simple; more time on ROS1 means a longer time until ROS2 is ready.

That simple math was true from the first day of work on ROS2 four years ago. It is not an argument for or against any strategy.

How about this question: If under ideal circumstances, ROS2 could be 'feature-complete, production-quality, viable as a complete replacement of ROS1' in X years. And if providing further ROS1 releases added Y years to that. Who would actually be hurt by those additional Y years of delay? Amazon? Will they go bust over a delay of ROS2? Microsoft? IBM? Intel? What's the worst that could happen, and to whom, for additional delays to that state of ROS2?

We can see clear and obvious harm in even talking about stopping ROS1 releases (though not harm to the financial sponsors of Open Robotics), but I fail to see any harm in delaying a "really ready" ROS2 further. The feature-complete DDS robotic middlewares that ROS2 is based on are available to anyone desperate enough, no team in the world is blocked without ROS2 becoming "really ready".

So if Open Robotics wants to be a foundation serving the whole open robotics community (not just their financial sponsors), what is the morally best decision?





---
[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/discussion-on-ros-to-ros2-transition-plan/6155/23) or reply to this email to respond.