search

ros-industrial / ros_industrial_cmake_boilerplate

Other
16 stars 14 forks source link

Tag 0.1.0 version #10

Closed mpowelson closed 3 years ago

mpowelson commented 4 years ago

After we have used this on a few projects and get it working, we should tag a 0.1.0 release so we can start pulling version tags instead of master or commits.

For reference, in progress ports are below. 1) Noether: https://github.com/ros-industrial/noether/pull/93 2) OPW_Kinematics: https://github.com/Jmeyer1292/opw_kinematics/pull/40

traversaro commented 3 years ago

Hi @mpowelson @Levi-Armstrong , thanks a lot for the work on opw_kinematics, it is a great package and we are really happy user of it! I was looking into packaging opw_kinematics in conda-forge, and I noticed that is has now the dependency on this package. Even I guess now it is too late, I wonder if you considered giving it a less-ambiguous name, such as ros_industrial_cmake_common_scripts or similar. As you may imagine, cmake_common_scripts is quite a common name, that could lead to name collisions with other internal similarly named packages, and in general not be really descriptive for users.

mpowelson commented 3 years ago

@Levi-Armstrong I don't feel strongly about this. I may let you and any interested parties at SwRI handle this one.

Levi-Armstrong commented 3 years ago

@traversaro Is there a particular package it is conflicting with now? I am not opposed to changing the name but it is already being used by around 10-15 packages some internal so I would like to avoid changing it if possible so I do not have to go through and update all of the packages. That said, if it is currently in conflict with another package on an OS, I will make the change.

@gavanderhoorn What do you think?

traversaro commented 3 years ago

@traversaro Is there a particular package it is conflicting with now? I am not opposed to changing the name but it is already being used by around 10-15 packages some internal so I would like to avoid changing it if possible so I do not have to go through and update all of the packages.

No, it is not conflicting with anything at the moment. If it is already so used, I understand the rationale for leaving as it is, thanks!

traversaro commented 3 years ago

I did not notice this has been fixed, thanks a lot @Levi-Armstrong !