On 11/16/2010 02:06 PM, Peter Soetens wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 November 2010 13:53:01 Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
>> On 11/16/2010 01:36 PM, Peter Soetens wrote:
>>> Just a short update on what I intend to do for the next releases:
>>>
>>> Toolchain 2.1.1 (on toolchain-2.1 branches):
>>> * Is 2.1.0 + all backwards compatible fixes. For orogen, it's orogen of
>>> 2.1.0 + a *merge* of the dfki branch. I'm not reverting ROS support
>>> here, since I have patches on top of the ROS patches that I need in
>>> orocreate-pkg and the deployer. We have to sort these out on the master
>>> branch (see below).
>>>
>>> Toolchain 2.2.0 (still on master branches):
>>> * merge Sylvain's dataflow fixes on master
>>> * 'rewind' orogen to be equal to dfki's orogen (revert commits, then
>>> merge) * merge dfki's typelib branch
>>
>> Fine, forget my previous rant mail.
>
> Oops.
>
>> I'll have to still think about the
>> general issue. Right now, oroGen *is* broken on the orocos toolchain and
>> the way you handle it makes me feel that the DFKI-provided tools are
>> second-class citizens.
>
> There can only be one thing first in my queue.
And your priorities get to decide what should happen to oroGen in the
orocos toolchain ? Note that I appreciate the plan for 2.2.0, it does
show that you do care somehow.

You, until now, took care of all the orocos-toolchain releases, deciding
when things go out and what goes out. Maybe it would be time to think
about involving the other contributors ? That could include having some
of the work done by other people. The "second-class citizen" feeling is
that it seems that you get to decide what happens to oroGen, and then
you put on me that it does not work "because I did not explicitely say
that there was a test suite" or "because I don't have much time
bugfixing the issues you introduced".

Maybe you should realize how much time I needed to make typegen what it
is. It is a tool that I have absolutely no need for, and I developed
only for your benefit.

Here's how things are going to work for me. I'll still maintain the
orocos-toolchain's orogen repository. But the main oroGen development
will be done on the upcoming Rock project. I'll make it clear on the
documentation and the mailing lists that if you want to use oroGen for
oroGen, you should track the Rock repo, not the orocos toolchain one, at
least for the time being. When the two repositories get synchronized,
I'll see if I can remove these notes.

>>> It's then the task of the ROS users to give a second try to supporting
>>> ROS in orogen, starting from the 2.2.0 release.
>>
>> I'll be happy to help, of course. I'm now building in separate prefixes
>> to fix the issues that which blocked Steven.
>
> Great.