Closed rhaschke closed 8 years ago
I think its a good idea to address https://github.com/ros-planning/moveit_ros/pull/709#discussion_r70888457 but I understand if you don't have the cycles for it right now
I addressed all comments. Remaining issue is to turn ExecuteService in ExecuteAction and of course deal with #716.
Further cleaned up and rebased. Disabling QueryStartState by default as suggested in #710. Relies on #717. For correct working of start-state updates, we need to fix #716 as well. Could be merged now.
+1
since this is a relatively major change (new GUI button) to a stable (indigo) release I think you should announce this on the mailing list
also, please be sure to cherry-pick to jade and kinetic
thanks!
@davetcoleman @rhaschke Thanks for working for this!
the thanks goes to @rhaschke !
please be sure to cherry-pick to jade and kinetic
Dave, you already merge-committed #718 into jade-devel. I would have loved to use a squashing commit only, i.e. forwarding jade-devel to the cherry-pick branch. Anybody minds to rebase jade-devel there?
The same I would do for kinetic. For me this eases reading the git graph: Merge commits are unique contributions, while cherry-picks could be committed directly. I just had to use a PR to let Travis do the compile checking.
since this is a relatively major change (new GUI button) to a stable (indigo) release I think you should announce this on the mailing list
Dear Dave, before announcing on the mailing list, I would like to finish #716, which is a major pre-requisite for #713 to work correctly. Hopefully, I find some time this evening to continue on that. In the same vein, I'm planning to merge those changes to Kinetic only as a bundle.
I just had to use a PR to let Travis do the compile checking.
Please make note of that in your PR if you don't want it actually merged yet.
Dave, you already merge-committed #718 into jade-devel.
Yes, I hadn't seen the PR until after I made that comment
You're announcement timeline sounds good, thanks!
This PR combines ideas of #709 and #710 (and would replaces those PRs) to allow
I consider this work-in-progress. @davetcoleman Should we address this comment like suggested?