(DO NOT MERGE) Remove all of the urdf_tutorial from this repository.

[clalancette]

@DLu I've gone ahead and made this repository a direct copy of urdf_tutorial as it exists as of today. Now we need to decide how to do the splitting.

One way to do this is to merge this PR here, and a similar one into urdf_tutorial onto the master branches on both. If we did that, then we would have to re-bloom the urdf_tutorial and urdf_sim_tutorial packages into all of the actively maintained distros (indigo, kinetic, lunar, and eventually melodic). We have done this somewhat successfully with robot_model, but the ride was not without its bumps. The good news is that this package is a lot more of a leaf package, so I think it would easier going.

Another, more conservative way to go here would be to make a new branch in the urdf_tutorial repository for melodic and newer, and then just do this change on melodic forwards. A variant on this is to make a new branch in the urdf_tutorial repository that is for lunar and older, and then keep master for just melodic forwards.

Thoughts on the approaches?

CC @mikaelarguedas

[mikaelarguedas]

One note about option 1: It would make sense to keep a branch on urdf_tutorial that still has the urdf_sim_tutorial package as it's been released on distros that have since been EOL (Jade). So pushing the current state of master to a new branch (jade-devel? legacy?) and update the jade/distribution.yaml file accordingly (source and doc sections) would be good before removing anything from master. Then I think the risks in moving the code for currently active distros is small as long as we:

• release them on all active distros from the new repo
• update the source and doc entries of all active distros
• update the links in the package.xml of the moved package to point to the new repo
• notify users beforehand (for people having forks or local checkouts)

More conservative ways sound good too and less prone to surprise users. I think the variant (branch for lunar and older) would be preferred as a user would expect the master branch to be the tip

[DLu]

I'm mildly in favor of option 2, but will defer to OSRF's better judgement.

[clalancette]

OK, seems like the consensus is to do the conservative approach, which is also fine by me. I'm going to start working on that now. I'll first close out this PR, since @mikaelarguedas correctly pointed out that we should probably filter-branch on this repository anyway. Once I do that, I'll create the new branches over on urdf_tutorial, and go from there.