What's going on with versionning ?

Hi all,

I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion on the
ML, could someone explain what's going on ?

The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is this a
way to go out of a dead end ?

I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change. As far
as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.

What's going on with versionning ?

Hi Willy,

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion on the
> ML, could someone explain what's going on ?

Maybe everybody was looking at me...

>
> The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is this a way
> to go out of a dead end ?

2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
currently at 2.7.0-9.
I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
they should be.

The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
could do until 2.6 is
not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.

> I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change. As far
> as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.

It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
binaries, you're limited to what is
in the ros repositories:

fuerte : toolchain-2.6
hydro : toolchain-2.7
indigo : toolchain-2.8

So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS release.

toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
sync with master.

The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
level, so not API's but extra
functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
be compatible with
the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
tools). On the orogen
side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
in sync with the masters
of rock. That's also a major step forward.

2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.

Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
2.8 release,
and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
I need more than a
few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
there always seems
to be a higher priority task in front of it.

Peter

What's going on with versionning ?

2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:

> Hi Willy,
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion on
> the
> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>
> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>
> >
> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is this a
> way
> > to go out of a dead end ?
>
> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
> currently at 2.7.0-9.
> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
> they should be.
>
> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
> that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
> could do until 2.6 is
> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>
> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change. As
> far
> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>
> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
> binaries, you're limited to what is
> in the ros repositories:
>
> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
> hydro : toolchain-2.7
> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>
> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS release.
>
> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
> sync with master.
>
> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
> level, so not API's but extra
> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
> be compatible with
> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
> tools). On the orogen
> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
> in sync with the masters
> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>
> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.
>
> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
> 2.8 release,
> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
> I need more than a
> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
> there always seems
> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>
> Peter
>

Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility table
in some public place :
"
fuerte : toolchain-2.6
hydro : toolchain-2.7
indigo : toolchain-2.8
"

I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?

It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this, it
would be great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the team
decided to change the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new
lightweight way, but no communication has been done on this... Maybe

Ruben Smits's picture

What's going on with versionning ?

It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/orocos/toolchain IMO

R.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
wrote:

>
>
> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
>
>> Hi Willy,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion on
>> the
>> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>>
>> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>>
>> >
>> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is this
>> a way
>> > to go out of a dead end ?
>>
>> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
>> currently at 2.7.0-9.
>> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
>> they should be.
>>
>> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
>> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
>> that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
>> could do until 2.6 is
>> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>>
>> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change. As
>> far
>> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>>
>> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
>> binaries, you're limited to what is
>> in the ros repositories:
>>
>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>
>> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS release.
>>
>> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
>> sync with master.
>>
>> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
>> level, so not API's but extra
>> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
>> be compatible with
>> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
>> tools). On the orogen
>> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
>> in sync with the masters
>> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>>
>> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.
>>
>> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
>> 2.8 release,
>> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
>> I need more than a
>> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
>> there always seems
>> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility table
> in some public place :
> "
> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
> hydro : toolchain-2.7
> indigo : toolchain-2.8
> "
>
> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>
> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this, it
> would be great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the team
> decided to change the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new
> lightweight way, but no communication has been done on this... Maybe
>
>
> --
> Orocos-Dev mailing list
> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>
>

Ruben Smits's picture

What's going on with versionning ?

This page should be updated:
http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and include the
list we have below.

R.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ruben Smits <ruben [dot] smits [..] ...>
wrote:

> It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/orocos/toolchain
> IMO
>
> R.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
>>
>>> Hi Willy,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion
>>> on the
>>> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>>>
>>> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is this
>>> a way
>>> > to go out of a dead end ?
>>>
>>> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
>>> currently at 2.7.0-9.
>>> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
>>> they should be.
>>>
>>> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
>>> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
>>> that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
>>> could do until 2.6 is
>>> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>>>
>>> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change. As
>>> far
>>> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>>>
>>> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
>>> binaries, you're limited to what is
>>> in the ros repositories:
>>>
>>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>>
>>> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS release.
>>>
>>> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
>>> sync with master.
>>>
>>> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
>>> level, so not API's but extra
>>> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
>>> be compatible with
>>> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
>>> tools). On the orogen
>>> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
>>> in sync with the masters
>>> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>>>
>>> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.
>>>
>>> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
>>> 2.8 release,
>>> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
>>> I need more than a
>>> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
>>> there always seems
>>> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility
>> table in some public place :
>> "
>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>> "
>>
>> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>>
>> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this, it
>> would be great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the team
>> decided to change the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new
>> lightweight way, but no communication has been done on this... Maybe
>>
>>
>> --
>> Orocos-Dev mailing list
>> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
>> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
> +32 479 511 786
> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
> www.intermodalics.eu
>

What's going on with versionning ?

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:

> This page should be updated: http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and
> include the list we have below.

In a similar context: the link to rFSM (from the main page of
orocos.org) does not work anymore; it could be relinked to
<http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc/rFSM/doc/>

> R.

Herman

>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ruben Smits <ruben [dot] smits [..] ...> wrote:
> It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/orocos/toolchain IMO
> R.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert
> <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another
> discussion on the
> > ML, could someone explain what's going on  ?
>
> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>
> >
> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc".
> Is this a way
> > to go out of a dead end ?
>
> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
> currently at 2.7.0-9.
> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
> they should be.
>
> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists
> is
> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
> that the release procedure (but also the review of
> branches/patches) I
> could do until 2.6 is
> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>
> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility
> change. As far
> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>
> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
> binaries, you're limited to what is
> in the ros repositories:
>
> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
> hydro : toolchain-2.7
> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>
> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS
> release.
>
> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's
> still in
> sync with master.
>
> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs  2.8 are on the 'extensions'
> level, so not API's but extra
> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was
> added to
> be compatible with
> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
> tools). On the orogen
> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain
> back
> in sync with the masters
> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>
> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level
> compatible.
>
> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for
> this
> 2.8 release,
> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better.
> But
> I need more than a
> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since,
> and
> there always seems
> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>
> Peter
>
>
> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility table in some
> public place :
> "
> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
> hydro : toolchain-2.7
> indigo : toolchain-2.8
> "
>
> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>
> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this, it would be
> great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the team decided to change
> the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new lightweight way, but no communication
> has been done on this... Maybe
>
>
> --
> Orocos-Dev mailing list
> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
> +32 479 511 786
> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
> www.intermodalics.eu
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
> +32 479 511 786
> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
> www.intermodalics.eu
>
>

Ruben Smits's picture

What's going on with versionning ?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Herman Bruyninckx <
Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>
> This page should be updated: http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/
>> getting-started and
>> include the list we have below.
>>
>
> In a similar context: the link to rFSM (from the main page of
> orocos.org) does not work anymore; it could be relinked to
> <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc/rFSM/doc/>
>

Would https://github.com/orocos/rFSM/blob/master/doc/README.org also be
fine?

R.

>
> R.
>>
>
> Herman
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ruben Smits <
>> ruben [dot] smits [..] ...> wrote:
>> It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/
>> orocos/toolchain IMO
>> R.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
>> Hi Willy,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert
>> <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another
>> discussion on the
>> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>>
>> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>>
>> >
>> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple
>> "rc".
>> Is this a way
>> > to go out of a dead end ?
>>
>> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS
>> repositories,
>> currently at 2.7.0-9.
>> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github,
>> where
>> they should be.
>>
>> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing
>> lists
>> is
>> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
>> that the release procedure (but also the review of
>> branches/patches) I
>> could do until 2.6 is
>> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>>
>> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility
>> change. As far
>> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>>
>> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS
>> .deb
>> binaries, you're limited to what is
>> in the ros repositories:
>>
>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>
>> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per
>> ROS
>> release.
>>
>> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's
>> still in
>> sync with master.
>>
>> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the
>> 'extensions'
>> level, so not API's but extra
>> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was
>> added to
>> be compatible with
>> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using
>> ROS
>> tools). On the orogen
>> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of
>> orocos-toolchain
>> back
>> in sync with the masters
>> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>>
>> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level
>> compatible.
>>
>> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes
>> for
>> this
>> 2.8 release,
>> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was
>> better.
>> But
>> I need more than a
>> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed
>> since,
>> and
>> there always seems
>> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility
>> table in some
>> public place :
>> "
>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>> "
>>
>> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>>
>> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this, it
>> would be
>> great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the team decided
>> to change
>> the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new lightweight way, but no
>> communication
>> has been done on this... Maybe
>>
>>
>> --
>> Orocos-Dev mailing list
>> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
>> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
>> +32 479 511 786
>> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
>> www.intermodalics.eu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
>> +32 479 511 786
>> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
>> www.intermodalics.eu
>>
>>

What's going on with versionning ?

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Herman Bruyninckx <Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>
> This page should be
> updated: http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and
> include the list we have below.
>
>
> In a similar context: the link to rFSM (from the main page of
> orocos.org) does not work anymore; it could be relinked to
>  <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc/rFSM/doc/>
>
>
> Would https://github.com/orocos/rFSM/blob/master/doc/README.org also be fine?

It would be better :-)

>  R.

Herman

What's going on with versionning ?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Herman Bruyninckx
<Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Herman Bruyninckx
>> <Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>>
>> This page should be
>> updated:
>> http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and
>> include the list we have below.
>>
>>
>> In a similar context: the link to rFSM (from the main page of
>> orocos.org) does not work anymore; it could be relinked to
>> <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc/rFSM/doc/>
>>
>>
>> Would https://github.com/orocos/rFSM/blob/master/doc/README.org also be
>> fine?
>
>
> It would be better :-)

Not it isn't. The images are not showing, since the urls are not
re-coded towards them (it's raw after all)

I copied Herman's content to the orocos.org site, it's now at
http://www.orocos.org/stable/documentation/rFSM/index.html

I fixed the link too.

Peter

What's going on with versionning ?

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Peter Soetens wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Herman Bruyninckx
> <Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Herman Bruyninckx
>>> <Herman [dot] Bruyninckx [..] ...> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ruben Smits wrote:
>>>
>>> This page should be
>>> updated:
>>> http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and
>>> include the list we have below.
>>>
>>>
>>> In a similar context: the link to rFSM (from the main page of
>>> orocos.org) does not work anymore; it could be relinked to
>>> <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc/rFSM/doc/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would https://github.com/orocos/rFSM/blob/master/doc/README.org also be
>>> fine?
>>
>>
>> It would be better :-)
>
> Not it isn't. The images are not showing, since the urls are not
> re-coded towards them (it's raw after all)

oops, I did not pay enough attention!

> I copied Herman's content

(It's still Markus' content :-) )

> to the orocos.org site, it's now at
> http://www.orocos.org/stable/documentation/rFSM/index.html
>
> I fixed the link too.

Thanks!!!

> Peter

Herman

What's going on with versionning ?

2015-03-17 15:07 GMT+01:00 Ruben Smits <ruben [dot] smits [..] ...>:

> This page should be updated:
> http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and include
> the list we have below.
>
> R.
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ruben Smits <ruben [dot] smits [..] ...
> > wrote:
>
>> It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/orocos/toolchain
>> IMO
>>
>
How do we edit this page ? I can modify the wiki, but this page seems to
work differently.

>
>> R.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Willy,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion
>>>> on the
>>>> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is
>>>> this a way
>>>> > to go out of a dead end ?
>>>>
>>>> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
>>>> currently at 2.7.0-9.
>>>> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
>>>> they should be.
>>>>
>>>> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
>>>> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
>>>> that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
>>>> could do until 2.6 is
>>>> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>>>>
>>>> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change.
>>>> As far
>>>> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>>>>
>>>> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
>>>> binaries, you're limited to what is
>>>> in the ros repositories:
>>>>
>>>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>>>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>>>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>>>
>>>> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS release.
>>>>
>>>> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
>>>> sync with master.
>>>>
>>>> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
>>>> level, so not API's but extra
>>>> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
>>>> be compatible with
>>>> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
>>>> tools). On the orogen
>>>> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
>>>> in sync with the masters
>>>> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>>>>
>>>> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
>>>> 2.8 release,
>>>> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
>>>> I need more than a
>>>> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
>>>> there always seems
>>>> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility
>>> table in some public place :
>>> "
>>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>> "
>>>
>>> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>>>
>>> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this,
>>> it would be great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the
>>> team decided to change the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new
>>> lightweight way, but no communication has been done on this... Maybe
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Orocos-Dev mailing list
>>> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
>>> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
>> +32 479 511 786
>> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
>> www.intermodalics.eu
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
> +32 479 511 786
> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
> www.intermodalics.eu
>

Ruben Smits's picture

What's going on with versionning ?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...>
wrote:

>
>
> 2015-03-17 15:07 GMT+01:00 Ruben Smits <ruben [dot] smits [..] ...>:
>
>> This page should be updated:
>> http://www.orocos.org/wiki/orocos/toolchain/getting-started and include
>> the list we have below.
>>
>> R.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ruben Smits <
>> ruben [dot] smits [..] ...> wrote:
>>
>>> It should go very close to here: http://www.orocos.org/orocos/toolchain
>>> IMO
>>>
>>
> How do we edit this page ? I can modify the wiki, but this page seems to
> work differently.
>
>

You're right, I don't know by heart, but we can edit the getting started
wiki page instead?

R.

>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Willy Lambert <lambert [dot] willy [..] ...
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-03-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Willy,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Willy Lambert <
>>>>> lambert [dot] willy [..] ...> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I just saw a reference to toolchain-2.8 branch in another discussion
>>>>> on the
>>>>> > ML, could someone explain what's going on ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe everybody was looking at me...
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The 2.7 version seem to have had hard time with multiple "rc". Is
>>>>> this a way
>>>>> > to go out of a dead end ?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7 was only released as Debian packages in the ROS repositories,
>>>>> currently at 2.7.0-9.
>>>>> I must admit I also can't find these version tags on github, where
>>>>> they should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of announcements of these releases on the mailing lists is
>>>>> clearly very confusing. The reason for this is
>>>>> that the release procedure (but also the review of branches/patches) I
>>>>> could do until 2.6 is
>>>>> not working anymore for me. From a timing/effort perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> > I'm also interested in the ROS/Orocos version compatibility change.
>>>>> As far
>>>>> > as I know 2.7 was compatible with Ros::Indigo.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, if you build from source. If you want to use the ROS .deb
>>>>> binaries, you're limited to what is
>>>>> in the ros repositories:
>>>>>
>>>>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>>>>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>>>>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>>>>
>>>>> So we only create binaries for one Orocos major version per ROS
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> toolchain-2.8 branched from master last year, but afaikt it's still in
>>>>> sync with master.
>>>>>
>>>>> The majority of the changes of 2.7 vs 2.8 are on the 'extensions'
>>>>> level, so not API's but extra
>>>>> functionality. On the ROS extension side, lots of support was added to
>>>>> be compatible with
>>>>> the ROS primitives (so access/modify Orocos primitives using ROS
>>>>> tools). On the orogen
>>>>> side, lot of work was done to get the masters of orocos-toolchain back
>>>>> in sync with the masters
>>>>> of rock. That's also a major step forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.8 and 2.7 are not binary compatible, but are source-level compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, we discussed a few weeks ago to create release notes for this
>>>>> 2.8 release,
>>>>> and properly tag it, since we all agree that before it was better. But
>>>>> I need more than a
>>>>> few hours to prepare that the 'old way'. Many hours passed since, and
>>>>> there always seems
>>>>> to be a higher priority task in front of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thx a lot for clarify this. I think we should add this compatibility
>>>> table in some public place :
>>>> "
>>>> fuerte : toolchain-2.6
>>>> hydro : toolchain-2.7
>>>> indigo : toolchain-2.8
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> I didn't find any relevant place, does anyone have an idea ?
>>>>
>>>> It seems that some of the core dev team have had private chat on this,
>>>> it would be great to share such discussions ;p. If I understand well the
>>>> team decided to change the way publication is done with 2.7 for a new
>>>> lightweight way, but no communication has been done on this... Maybe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Orocos-Dev mailing list
>>>> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
>>>> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
>>> +32 479 511 786
>>> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
>>> www.intermodalics.eu
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruben Smits, Roboticist - Founder
>> +32 479 511 786
>> Intermodalics - Kapeldreef 60, 3001 Heverlee - BELGIUM
>> www.intermodalics.eu
>>
>
>