search

ros-planning / navigation_msgs

Message packages required by the navigation stack
42 stars 53 forks source link

Rolling release? #25

Open wjwwood opened 3 years ago

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

We're preparing to fork rolling into galactic and we noticed there are changes on the default branch that have not been released yet: https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation_msgs/compare/2.0.2...ros2

@mikeferguson @DLu do either of you have time to evaluate whether or not a released needs to happen and make it? If you find it does need a release but do not have time to do it, let me know and we'll try to do a release for you.

mikeferguson commented 3 years ago

I think this is a @SteveMacenski question - I can certainly do a release - but he's more in tune with what is going on in ROS2 navigation and so I'd want him to say we should do a release.

SteveMacenski commented 3 years ago

I don't intend to maintain any use of rolling, the number of emails it has flooded me with from transient issues in the build farm has turned me off of it due to the sheer volume of packages my email is associated with. This is a msgs package and if it was already in rolling, then I suppose no problem, there's no reason it couldn't be updated again.

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

Whether you use rolling or not, we're basing galactic off of rolling initially, so if you don't update it now, you'll probably have to update it in galactic. But it's certainly up to you.

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

Oh, I think I was confused by the removal of the other package, but @mabelzhang FYI as well.

mabelzhang commented 3 years ago

Did we reach a conclusion? I think Steve has voted in favor of a release? I see no problem either.

SteveMacenski commented 3 years ago

@wjwwood you may do a release for rolling if navigation_msgs is already in rolling (which I'm not sure when that happened). The only major difference is depreciating the move_base_msgs package

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

I think rolling was seeded automatically from foxy.

Seems like we can do a release (perhaps also to foxy?). I'll let you guys sort out what you'd like to do.

SteveMacenski commented 3 years ago

So I don't understand why we'd need to re-release to foxy? There is no difference between 2.0.2 released and foxy https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation_msgs/compare/2.0.2...foxy

A release to ros2 for rolling wouldn't hurt if its going to go into galactic automatically, but I'm a little thrown off that rolling pre-populated repos without maintainers consent from foxy... am I about to get flooded by emails after the galactic jobs start triggering? I thought this was an opt-in program, not an automatically enrolled one :confused:

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

So I don't understand why we'd need to re-release to foxy? There is no difference between 2.0.2 released and foxy 2.0.2...foxy

No you're right, foxy is good to go.

I missed that there was a ros2 and foxy branch. Too many repositories on my mind... sorry.

I'm a little thrown off that rolling pre-populated repos without maintainers consent from foxy...

I don't know why that's an issue, but that is the case for map_msgs:

http://repo.ros2.org/status_page/ros_rolling_default.html?q=map_msgs

https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/blob/50ddbb60ab92857df211229db699f7df18a9815d/rolling/distribution.yaml#L1180-L1198

I thought this was an opt-in program, not an automatically enrolled one 😕

The details are laid out here: https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2002.html

You could opt-out, but then people using rolling wouldn't get it, and you'd have more work to do when galactic releases. I suppose it's a trade-off.

I guess you can raise concerns about it in one of these places:

Looks like you commented on the REP, but maybe this reality wasn't conveyed properly?

SteveMacenski commented 3 years ago

I know we're off topic here now (but resolution: feel free to run a sync), but I guess I missed that detail while reading the REP or I didn't process what that would mean for maintainers.

For msgs packages like this, I don't mind that logic. I'm more concerned about any non-msgs packages I maintain that were added. By automatically enrolling maintainers, they could be genuinely unaware of it. While I was aware of rolling, I now have actually no idea which or what packages I maintain are now in rolling to even be aware that I should be syncing them to rolling or directly to the distribution.

I think this was a bit of an oversight on the introduction of rolling. I think every package that was automatically transitioned over should get an issue filed on their repositories stating that fact and a link to REP 2002 to make maintainers aware this happened. There are plenty of people in the ROS community that aren't involved with Discourse or aware of every draft REP. This is the first new distro release on rolling, so now would be the optimal time if there ever was one to do it.

Else, I think years from now there will still be people unaware their projects were moved to rolling and they release into new-distro without knowing ancient years-old binaries are still being built and deployed on new-distro release date (e.g. so there's a period of time where ancient code is released before they do their manual release of the current stuff). Or when things break and they get an email about it, they'll have no idea what's going on

wjwwood commented 3 years ago

You should really cross link that to one of the places I mentioned above so other people can weigh in. (As you said kind of off topic for this issue)

SteveMacenski commented 3 years ago

This is a good point, done https://discourse.ros.org/t/notify-rolling-maintainers-theyve-been-automatically-enrolled/19562