[ros-users] Enterprise Version of ROS
Kartik Babu
kartik.babu at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 14:32:23 UTC 2012
Also, If one did not sign up for the SIG's when Fuerte Planning was
announced, is it possible to do so before ROSCON?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Edwards, Shaun M. <sedwards at swri.org>wrote:
> Is there already a SIG that would consider this topic or do we need to
> form a new one? Is there a set time for SIG meetings at ROSCON?
>
> Shaun Edwards
> Senior Research Engineer
> Manufacturing System Department
>
>
> http://robotics.swri.org
> http://rosindustrial.swri.org/
> http://ros.swri.org
> Southwest Research Institute
> 210-522-3277
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-users-bounces at code.ros.org [mailto:
> ros-users-bounces at code.ros.org] On Behalf Of Jack O'Quin
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:58 AM
> To: User discussions
> Subject: Re: [ros-users] Enterprise Version of ROS
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Edwards, Shaun M. <sedwards at swri.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't want to limit ROS development by imposing backwards
> compatibility
> > requirements. As ROS and associated libraries become more mature we
> could
> > then impose backwards compatibility requirements.
>
> In my view, the REP process defines interfaces that are mature enough
> to persist across multiple releases and implementations. We should use
> that to inform compatibility expectations.
>
> > I think what you point out is certifying versions of ROS will require
> > significant amounts of testing development effort. The hope would be
> that
> > the testing software component would not have to be reworked every time
> we
> > decide to created a certified version of ROS, thereby imposing some sort
> of
> > backwards compatibility requirement. There is certainly a balancing act
> > that we as a community need to maintain so that we can have certified
> > versions of ROS with commercial acceptance as well as freedom to change
> and
> > develop ROS as needed to meet research objectives.
>
> Well said. I was working on formulating similar thoughts when I saw your
> post.
>
> I would add that none of these issues are particularly new or unique
> to ROS. They mostly boil down to the high costs of testing and
> maintenance. Operating systems have been dealing with these for many
> decades.
>
> There are several open source models we could emulate. I think the
> Ubuntu LTS approach is worth considering: maintaining matching sets of
> Ubuntu LTS versions (Lucid, Precise) and ROS "LTS" distributions (TBD)
> for several years.
>
> Running and developing compliance tests is a really big job. The QA
> group will need to define its scope carefully. Doing that in a shared
> community is one of the strengths of open source development.
>
> This is an important discussion, worth a SIG meeting next month at ROScon.
> --
> joq
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20120418/937d719a/attachment-0004.html>
More information about the ros-users
mailing list