WBC release 2.5.2

[gabrielenava]

See the associated issue: #94

cc @nunoguedelha

[traversaro]

@gabrielenava can we release this version of whole-body-controllers without waiting for all the features listed in https://github.com/robotology/whole-body-controllers/issues/94, or do you think there could be problems? For several internal issues it would be great to get this out (i.e. released, inside a conda package) soon, thanks!

[gabrielenava]

@gabrielenava can we release this version of whole-body-controllers without waiting for all the features listed in #94, or do you think there could be problems? For several internal issues it would be great to get this out (i.e. released, inside a conda package) soon, thanks!

I think it is ok, the only issue it may be worth to address now is the documentation update https://github.com/robotology/whole-body-controllers/issues/90, just to ensure that all changes and features are correctly documented

[traversaro]

@gabrielenava can we release this version of whole-body-controllers without waiting for all the features listed in #94, or do you think there could be problems? For several internal issues it would be great to get this out (i.e. released, inside a conda package) soon, thanks!

I think it is ok, the only issue it may be worth to address now is the documentation update #90, just to ensure that all changes and features are correctly documented

Ok, @nunoguedelha do you think it is feasible? Which part of the documentation need to be updated?

[nunoguedelha]

Well, actually #90 it's the only thing missing from #94 right?

• describe briefly the theory behind each controller (math + diagrams) and add reference for detailed description

Possible advice:

• describe how to tune the CoM and joints gains for the yoga demo
• describe how to tune the regularization parameters for the yoga demo

I think this can be too long if we want to trigger the release tomorrow. And I think it wouldn't be a big deal to leave such thorough documentation for the following release.

I was targeting to submit the PR documenting the YOGA+matlab-whole-body-simulator before tomorrow morning (your time), plus the merges to master, such that we put the tags.

[nunoguedelha]

So basically, to be clear, I think we should do this merge after #126 where I'm documenting the stuff from the new model (YOGA+mwbs).

[traversaro]

Thanks, I did not noticed #90 was so complex, probably we can do a release even without all of #90 ? @gabrielenava

[traversaro]

Thanks, I did not noticed #90 was so complex, probably we can do a release even without all of #90 ? @gabrielenava

To clarify, we can mark the new release of 2.6 or something like that, and then leave for 3.0 the revamped docs, the rename, etc etc.

[gabrielenava]

Thanks, I did not noticed #90 was so complex, probably we can do a release even without all of #90 ? @gabrielenava

I did not remember either that the target of #90 was so high, with

I think it is ok, the only issue it may be worth to address now is the documentation update #90, just to ensure that all changes and features are correctly documented

I just meant what @nunoguedelha wrote in https://github.com/robotology/whole-body-controllers/pull/115#issuecomment-837375644 plus a general check to verify that all readmes and wiki are updated.

To clarify, we can mark the new release of 2.6 or something like that, and then leave for 3.0 the revamped docs, the rename, etc etc.

Ok to me, I made already a pre-release (2.5.1), is it fine to call this release 2.5.2?

[traversaro]

Ok to me, I made already a pre-release (2.5.1), is it fine to call this release 2.5.2?

Ok for me, @nunoguedelha ?

[nunoguedelha]

Fine to me. So we agree that #126 goes first? I'm about to finish that one...

[traversaro]

Fine to me. So we agree that #126 goes first? I'm about to finish that one...

Yes.

[nunoguedelha]

126 is merged on devel. We can proceed with this one. We create a merge commit, or do a fast-forward of master? @gabrielenava @traversaro

[nunoguedelha]

It seems, from the commits tree history of the repo, that the common practice here is to fast-forward the master. Am I right @gabrielenava ?

[nunoguedelha]

@gabrielenava , I've done a fast-forward merge, such that you just have to apply the tag v2.5.2 on master.

[nunoguedelha]

@gabrielenava , since we had clearly agreed on the release, I allowed myself to rename the PR to WBC release 2.5.2. Hope you don't mind. Also reopened #94 since there is still the documentation to do. See you tomorrow.