[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [General] File naming convention "rosinstall" misleading?

Isaac I. Y. Saito ros.discourse at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 19:05:56 UTC 2019

(I can't find a better channel but please feel free to move this to a more appropriate one.)

I'm wondering if using *rosinstall* still makes sense as the naming convention of the files that are typically passed to `wstool`. Reason being:
- Those files together with `wstool` don't install, instead they are used for downloading repositories IMO.
- By `wstool` being ROS-independent tool, those files together with wstool can be used for downloading non-ROS repos.
- After all, the are the files that are passed to `wstool`. I assume *rosinstall* came from the tool that was previously used.
  - So using something like "wstool" makes more sense, e.g. `.wstool`?

(Note: my experience is highly `wstool`-intensive. I'm not aware of any other active usecase of *rosinstall* files.)

I suggest updating documentation incl. tutorials, but the core document of his naming is [REP 126](http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0126.html). I can open an MR to update the rep that if that makes sense.
This is just a convention so I don't think existing usecases get affected even if we change the REP etc.

I've seen new experienced engineers who recently started working in ROS-related projects getting confused due to this.

[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/1) or reply to this email to respond.

More information about the ros-users mailing list