[Rock-dev] The issue with Rock
Matthias Goldhoorn
matthias.goldhoorn at dfki.de
Thu Jun 5 09:08:39 CEST 2014
Good Morning,
I don't know what you mean with resistance, in the past master was the
most "stable" version with the newest features.
Therefore there was no resistance.
Specially for Syskit/Roby i not posted all bugs, most of the bugs i
workaround, but i will start to create bug-requests for this...
Regarding the new functionality, you are right, most of these features
are not needed, they make only the life easier..., but if i as developer
see the need of a feature and implement it, i want to use this directly.
I think this is normal, since the rock-devs are not pure-rock devs, work
is done if we feel that we need enhancements...
Maybe we should rename the structure or introduce a experimental branch.
Phsychological i have the impression that "master" gets associated with
"newest" not with an "unstable development" version. Maybe we should
rename or create an additional "unstable" branch, from where the release
policy to master is not so fixed windowed...
example development:
- work is done on experimental and pushed as soon as the dev thing it
might work
- experimental is pushed to master, as soon the responsible dev thing
his changes work for all (few days upto a week?)
Again i thing the primary reasons why most of all stays on master ist
that the other branches does not have the "needed"("wished") features,
or they have bugs that are not pushed from master
Thoughts?
Matthias
On 04.06.2014 17:00, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> Then ... my next question would be:
>
> Why isn't there more resistance w.r.t. switching to master ?
>
> I mean, when you say "oh I had a bug on syskit on next", did you
> report it as a functionality bug on next ? Did you insist that it
> should be fixed *on next* ? instead of switching to master ?
>
> For new functionality, how much of it is "oh but I need X, it is so
> shiny" instead of "without X, I really cannot do it !". I mean, when I
> worked on the Orion I *wanted* some features from master, but quickly
> realized that I did not *need* them. I had what was strictly needed to
> get the Joints type (meaning typelib/master but orogen/next)
>
> As for the release schedule / frequency, I can only do +1. Releases
> are too far apart.
>
> My big problem here is that master has become the de-facto version of
> Rock that everyone uses, which really hinders possibility to do some
> actual development.
>
> Sylvain
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Matthias Goldhoorn
> <matthias.goldhoorn at dfki.de <mailto:matthias.goldhoorn at dfki.de>> wrote:
>
> On 04.06.2014 15:43, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
>> Is that everyone seem to think that they need master. The
>> majority should be using stable or next.
>>
>> Now, I *know* that there are reasons (there are always reasons)
>> why one might think that master is required. However, the main
>> question for me is:
>>
>> How can we make people feel confident that they can use next ?
>>
>> Or
>>
>> How can we ensure that 'next' can be used except for a few
>> packages that would go on master ?
>>
>> The best way to start answering these questions is to answer
>> another one:
>>
>> Why are you on master ?
>
> Because i using syskit and the next version is even more unstable
> than master. I had several times that the depandancy between
> roby/syskit and other 'core' packages is hard. So i cannot stay a
> long time on next and only with syskit/roby on master.
> Indeed i'm not sure if i can currently use syskit/roby on next and
> everything else on master.
>
> So generally speaking, incompatibilities between
> syskit/roby/utilmm/utilrb/typelib/orogen/ base/types/(std)
>
>
> The Second point, is that the release cycle to next is to long for
> new features, i i (as rock-dev) add new features to rock. I take
> ofter months before it goes into next.
> Therefore i have (due to the same reasons above) switch to master,
> also for other members of my project. I would prefer a shorter
> release time between master/stable/next...
>
>
>
> Best,
> Matthias
>
>
>
>>
>> Sylvain
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rock-dev mailing list
>> Rock-dev at dfki.de <mailto:Rock-dev at dfki.de>
>> http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
>
>
> --
> --
> Matthias Goldhoorn
> Unterwasserrobotik
>
> Standort Bremen:
> DFKI GmbH
> Robotics Innovation Center
> Robert-Hooke-Straße 5
> 28359 Bremen, Germany
>
> Phone:+49 (0)421 218-64100 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29421%20218-64100>
> Fax:+49 (0)421 218-64150 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29421%20218-64150>
> E-Mail:robotik at dfki.de <mailto:robotik at dfki.de>
>
> Weitere Informationen:http://www.dfki.de/robotik
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> Firmensitz: Trippstadter Straße 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster
> (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
> USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148646973
> Steuernummer: 19/673/0060/3
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Dipl.-Inf. Matthias Goldhoorn
Space and Underwater Robotic
Universität Bremen
FB 3 - Mathematik und Informatik
AG Robotik
Robert-Hooke-Straße 1
28359 Bremen, Germany
Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-6611
Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftstelle:
Robert-Hooke-Straße 5
28359 Bremen, Germany
Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4193
Empfang: +49 421 178 45-6600
Fax: +49 421 178 45-4150
E-Mail: matthias.goldhoorn at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Weitere Informationen: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/robotik
-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: http://www.dfki.de/pipermail/rock-dev/attachments/20140605/947677a0/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Rock-dev
mailing list