Ros2 port of map_msgs

[wjwwood]

DO NOT MERGE, this is just for reference, the ros2 branch should remain separate for now.

Hi guys, I went ahead and ported map_msgs and put it on this ros2 branch because we need it in the map display for rviz in ROS 2. I hope you guys don't mind that I put it on a branch rather than a fork.

This does a few things:

• map_msgs
  • adds myself as a maintainer, so that you guys don't have to support the ROS 2 branch alone
  • update the version to 2.0.0 (to avoid overlap with ROS 1 version for now)
  • update dependencies in package.xml to be ROS 2 style
  • update cmake code to use ament and do message generation in ROS 2
  • touchup the messages to remove trailing whitespace and use std_msgs/Header instead of Header (required in ROS 2)
• move_base_msgs
  • disable with AMENT_IGNORE file (like CATKIN_IGNORE) for now since actions are still being ported

If you guys could close this pull request as an indication that this is all ok, that would be great. At that point I'd open a new issue to track that move_base_msgs needs porting when actions are done in ROS 2.

Also, this repository may be able to have one branch for both ROS 1 and ROS 2 in the future, but that depends on some on going work to smooth migration. So I'll have to come back and touch things again when that's possible.

I also built this on top of https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation_msgs/pull/3 in the hope that gets merged at some point.

Please let me know if you guys have any issues with this or questions for me.

Thanks!

[mikeferguson]

Looks good by me. I'm fine with with having ROS1/ROS2 in same repo, only comment would be that eventually this might want X-devel as branch name if we need different versions for different ROS releases (that is probably not likely for just messages).

Any timeline on actions being ported to ROS2?

[wjwwood]

only comment would be that eventually this might want X-devel as branch name if we need different versions for different ROS releases (that is probably not likely for just messages).

That might come up in the future, but for now, I think just ros2 is ok. We can change that at any point if necessary.

Any timeline on actions being ported to ROS2?

Doesn't look like it will get in this release, but some community people already started looking at it: https://github.com/ros2/design/pull/143