I also think it's valuable to have "meta-stacks" so that users can get a
high level view of groupings of drivers in ROS. Many users struggle with
tracking packages down already because they use generic searches like
"camera" (it's the 58th most searched for term/word in ROS) and "kinect"
(the 1st most searched for term). I had to synonyms for openni in the
google search and I also added ROS promotions for many of the drivers to
help guide users to the right places (the box that pops up at the top of the
page "Looking for a Kinect or PrimeSense driver?") . To that point another
thing that would help me is getting more help around generating google/ROS
promotions to funnel users to the correct places, if you search for hokuyo,
kinect, camera, etc you'll see the promotions that I've added so far. Here
is a link to an overview of promotions and how to create them:
http://googlecustomsearch.blogspot.com/2009/05/custom-search-promotions-made-easier.html
.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jack O'Quin <
jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Eric Perko <wisesage5001@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to collect a list of all the driver packages we intend to
> >> convert to unary stacks.
> >>
> >> I believe all the camera_drivers stack could be repackaged. That would
> >> leave the camera_drivers stack, itself, empty except for dependencies
> >> on all the unary stacks for external compatibility.
> >
> > +1. I like using the camera_drivers stack as a sort of "meta-package" to
> > pull in all of the officially support camera drivers. But at that point,
> > maybe it would be best to just supply a .rosinstall file and build a
.deb
> > file that depends on all of the officially support drivers instead of
> > maintaining an actual stack in SVN.
>
> My current thinking is that the camera_drivers stack serves a useful
> purpose as a documentation node to collect meta-information about
> camera drivers in general. I'd hate to lose that.
>
> Keeping a stub "meta-stack" for that purpose seems worthwhile to me.
> I'd like to hear other ideas about it. Maybe there are better
> solutions. Can you suggest any, Melonee?
>
> >> Are there other drivers we should repackage in this way? Let's try to
> >> compile a (fairly) complete list.
>
> I see no compelling reason to repackage all the drivers. It should be
> done only when and where it helps the developers or users.
> --
> joq
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-sig-drivers mailing list
> Ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-sig-drivers
--
Senior Engineer
Intern Program Director
Willow Garage
68 Willow Rd.
Menlo Park, Ca 94025
I also think it's valuable to have "meta-stacks" so that users can get a high level view of groupings of drivers in ROS. Many users struggle with tracking packages down already because they use generic searches like "camera" (it's the 58th most searched for term/word in ROS) and "kinect" (the 1st most searched for term). I had to synonyms for openni in the google search and I also added ROS promotions for many of the drivers to help guide users to the right places (the box that pops up at the top of the page "Looking for a Kinect or PrimeSense driver?") . To that point another thing that would help me is getting more help around generating google/ROS promotions to funnel users to the correct places, if you search for hokuyo, kinect, camera, etc you'll see the promotions that I've added so far. Here is a link to an overview of promotions and how to create them:
http://googlecustomsearch.blogspot.com/2009/05/custom-search-promotions-made-easier.html .
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jack O'Quin <
jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Eric Perko <
wisesage5001@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jack O'Quin <
jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >> I'd like to collect a list of all the driver packages we intend to
> >> convert to unary stacks.> >>> >> I believe all the camera_drivers stack could be repackaged. That would> >> leave the camera_drivers stack, itself, empty except for dependencies
> >> on all the unary stacks for external compatibility.> >> > +1. I like using the camera_drivers stack as a sort of "meta-package" to> > pull in all of the officially support camera drivers. But at that point,
> > maybe it would be best to just supply a .rosinstall file and build a .deb> > file that depends on all of the officially support drivers instead of> > maintaining an actual stack in SVN.>
> My current thinking is that the camera_drivers stack serves a useful> purpose as a documentation node to collect meta-information about> camera drivers in general. I'd hate to lose that.>
> Keeping a stub "meta-stack" for that purpose seems worthwhile to me.> I'd like to hear other ideas about it. Maybe there are better> solutions. Can you suggest any, Melonee?>> >> Are there other drivers we should repackage in this way? Let's try to
> >> compile a (fairly) complete list.>> I see no compelling reason to repackage all the drivers. It should be> done only when and where it helps the developers or users.> --> joq
> _______________________________________________> Ros-sig-drivers mailing list>
Ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org>
https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-sig-drivers
--Senior EngineerIntern Program DirectorWillow Garage68 Willow Rd.Menlo Park, Ca 94025
(text/plain)