search

ros / urdfdom

URDF parser
http://ros.org/wiki/urdf
Other
96 stars 132 forks source link

Move specification from ROS wiki to the urdfdom repo #183

Open traversaro opened 1 year ago

traversaro commented 1 year ago

Fix https://github.com/ros/urdfdom_headers/issues/62 . See also discussion in https://discourse.ros.org/t/urdf-improvements/30520/25 .

~Currently in draft, however early comments on the parts that are already converted are welcome.~ PR is now ready for review.

The converted specification is visible at https://github.com/traversaro/urdfdom/tree/movespecification/specification .

ros-discourse commented 1 year ago

This pull request has been mentioned on ROS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.ros.org/t/short-term-wg-about-urdf-description-formats/30843/17

traversaro commented 9 months ago

Thanks to @harleylara that completed the work in https://github.com/traversaro/urdfdom/pull/1, I think we are not ready for review in the PR. There are still some DCO problems that we need to fix, but anyhow I think this is ready for a first review. @harleylara feel free to report here the question you made in https://github.com/traversaro/urdfdom/pull/1 .

harleylara commented 9 months ago

Trying to add the DCO to the commits is modifying the commit history heavily (I'm not a big fan of it)...Any strategy or recommendation?

traversaro commented 9 months ago

I see a few spurious commits to the history, I can look in cleaning up the history and leave your commits ready for adding DCO, is that ok?

harleylara commented 9 months ago

@peci1 thanks for taking the time to review and improve it, fresh eyes are always a great help 😁

traversaro commented 9 months ago

Thanks @peci1 , I totally agree on the changes but I am not sure if we want to conflate in the same PR the migration to markdown/GitHub and changing the text that was in the wiki. Leaving the text as in the wiki probably would simplify the life of the reviewers of the PR. Perhaps @clalancette can comment on this. My hunch is that we can keep improvements in the text to future PRs. Related to this @harleylara do you think we could spin off the XSD changes in a separate PR, as it is kind of independent from the spec migration?

peci1 commented 9 months ago

Okay, feel free to do it as you like/need. I think it'd be relatively easy to repeat the changes in a new PR.

clalancette commented 9 months ago

Thanks @peci1 , I totally agree on the changes but I am not sure if we want to conflate in the same PR the migration to markdown/GitHub and changing the text that was in the wiki. Leaving the text as in the wiki probably would simplify the life of the reviewers of the PR. Perhaps @clalancette can comment on this.

In general, yeah, I think that would be better. I think we should do some light editing here, but anything more major should go into a separate PR.

With that in mind, I'm going to do a review, mostly thinking about where this should live in the directory hierarchy and making sure that this mostly matches what was in the wiki.