search

ros-drivers / gscam

ROS Camera driver for GStreamer-based video streams.
142 stars 174 forks source link

release gscam #6

Closed jbohren closed 11 years ago

jbohren commented 11 years ago
jbohren commented 11 years ago

Created: https://github.com/ros-gbp/gscam-release

jbohren commented 11 years ago

@rctoris shall we both be maintainers?

jack-oquin commented 11 years ago

There is now a ros-drivers-gbp. Why not use that?

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Bohren notifications@github.comwrote:

@rctoris https://github.com/rctoris shall we both be maintainers?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/ros-drivers/gscam/issues/6#issuecomment-18575012 .

joq

jbohren commented 11 years ago

Because I didn't know it existed and don't have repo creation privs there anyway b:

I'm happy for it to go there, though.

rctoris commented 11 years ago

@jbohren sure, go ahead and list both of us as maintainer

jack-oquin commented 11 years ago

There is a ros-drivers-gbp/gscam-release now. You two are authorized. It mirrors the camera_drivers team on ros-drivers.

Feel free to use it if you like, or delete it if you don't.

jbohren commented 11 years ago

Thanks, Jack!

Just blooom'd to hydro for testing: https://github.com/ros-drivers-gbp/gscam-release

@rctoris feel free to update rosdoc and create a PR to rosdistro.

rctoris commented 11 years ago

Excellent, thanks @jack-oquin @jbohren !

jbohren commented 11 years ago

PR'd https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/pull/925

jbohren commented 11 years ago

@rctoris the release repo is now in the hydro rosdistro, can you update rosdoc so the wiki points to the right place?

rctoris commented 11 years ago

@jbohren Should we create hyrdo-devel and groovy-devel branches so we can keep version numbers correct?

jbohren commented 11 years ago

I was thinking about that, but is that necessary if the groovy and hydro versions are the same?

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Russell Toris notifications@github.comwrote:

@jbohren https://github.com/jbohren Should we create hyrdo-devel and groovy-devel branches so we can keep version numbers correct?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/ros-drivers/gscam/issues/6#issuecomment-18618491 .

Jonathan Bohren Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics http://dscl.lcsr.jhu.edu/People/JonathanBohren

rctoris commented 11 years ago

Yeah the version numbers have to differ across releases. We can have hydro be 0.1.x and groovy start with 0.0.x. Patches can be cherry-picked down or up to the appropriate version when they come in. I'll set it up and point everything to the right spot.

jack-oquin commented 11 years ago

Yeah the version numbers have to differ across releases. We can have hydro be 0.1.x and groovy start with 0.0.x. Patches can be cherry-picked down or up to the appropriate version when they come in. I'll set it up and point everything to the right spot.

Why must they be different?

I have released the same version to more than one distro many times. If the sources are identical, that is the least confusing approach.

Maintaining separate groovy-devel and hydro-devel branches seems to be popular with the core ROS developers. Personally, I dislike that approach and prefer to do all new development in master, only creating an xxx-devel branch when the corresponding xxx distro is in maintenance mode, with only bug fixes and no new development allowed

rctoris commented 11 years ago

My understanding that the -devel versioning system was pretty standard across ROS and recommended. I rarely find packages that diverge from this. The main reason is what happens when a patch works for one version of ROS but not the others (e.g., an API change or message definition change)? While some packages this may not happen, with others this will certainly be the case. Having -devel branches helps to keep a working copy of code that is known to work with a certain ROS distro.

jbohren commented 11 years ago

Maintaining separate groovy-devel and hydro-devel branches seems to be popular with the core ROS developers. Personally, I dislike that approach and prefer to do all new development in master, only creating an xxx-devel branch when the corresponding xxx distro is in maintenance mode, with only bug fixes and no new development allowed

Yeah, I like this second approach as well. I might blow away the devel branch and just have the release repo track master until we put a distro into "maintenance mode". Right now the same version of SMACH is released to hydro and groovy (and soon fuerte) and keeping three branches synched has felt sort of silly so I think I'll do this there, too.

jack-oquin commented 11 years ago

@rctoris:

The -devel branches are certainly recommended by several people whose opinions I respect. My own opinion differs, but this question is best left up to you and @jbohren.

I was merely questioning the assertion that they "have to differ".

I think the main reason for the difference of opinion is that the core ROS developers are writing code focused on one distro at a time. When they do their job well, which is usually the case, higher-level packages including device drivers can support multiple distros in a single source. I've been doing that since C-turtle with very few problems.

jbohren commented 11 years ago

@jack-oquin thanks for the experience / insights

@rctoris So, is one branch alright until we want to make a breaking change?

rctoris commented 11 years ago

Sure, sounds good

jbohren commented 11 years ago

Ok, I updated the branches, and the gbp repo, and released to groovy.

rctoris commented 11 years ago

rosdoc pointers added --> https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/pull/937

jbohren commented 11 years ago

@rctoris awesome!

Also, I just added some missing deps that the buildfarm needed: https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/pull/938 / https://github.com/ros-drivers/gscam/commit/51f7dc79a49754c346ff8e0a35b84cfe60cb9302

jbohren commented 11 years ago

Looks like everything is working on the buildfarm, and the wiki has been updated.