Ask Your Question
3

Where does the review status go under catkin?

asked 2013-02-16 10:47:01 -0500

joq gravatar image

updated 2013-02-17 04:04:21 -0500

Catkin complains that the <review> tag is not allowed in the package.xml.

Where should this information be maintained, now?

EDIT: I realize catkin does not support it. It is not needed for building.

The question is where does that information go? Is there now a wiki macro? Are we just throwing it away?

No reasonable user would consider this unimportant.

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

3 Answers

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
1

answered 2013-02-16 21:05:35 -0500

KruseT gravatar image

I believe that information is not maintained in catkin anymore, mostly because it has not proven to be useful. I cannot find the post where this was discussed, though.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

1

I remember the discussion. I can't find it, either. To me, review status is the most useful information about a package: if it has no reviews, it is not worth using.

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-17 04:00:47 -0500 )edit

The value of the tag is worthless, as reviewed packages don't get their tag updated, packages which have been reviewed change and should be reviewed again, but are not, etc... the actual review status would be useful. That can be discussed in Buildsystem SiG, but prepare for disappointment.

KruseT gravatar image KruseT  ( 2013-02-17 06:18:23 -0500 )edit

It is certainly not "worthless". The fact that a package that has never been reviewed is valuable information (i.e. don't use it). If the review date is present, but old, that is also useful to know.

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-17 15:26:45 -0500 )edit

As I say, a tag saing "not reviewed" does not mean the package has not been reviewed. It would be foolish to put so much faith into a tag. And "reviewed 2009" does not tell you neither that it has not been reviewed in 2012. also the extend of the review is never known.

KruseT gravatar image KruseT  ( 2013-02-17 19:55:56 -0500 )edit

I am not "putting faith" in a tag, just using it as evidence for Bayesian inference. It is quite unlikely that an reviewed package will say it is unreviewed. At the very least, that would be evidence of poor maintenance, and users should avoid it, if possible.

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-18 04:18:35 -0500 )edit

The wiki Reviews page does document what reviews were done. Reasonable users can draw their own conclusions from the discussions recorded there.

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-18 04:21:28 -0500 )edit

Thibault, I am confused by your assumption that a package with no 2012 review is worthless. The specific example for this question is camera1394. It is widely used and actively maintained. The last reviews were in 2010. The API and documentation have stable since then. Is that a problem?

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-18 04:27:33 -0500 )edit

This is no place for discussions.

KruseT gravatar image KruseT  ( 2013-02-18 07:50:48 -0500 )edit
2

answered 2013-02-17 14:33:08 -0500

jbohren gravatar image

I thought that, with the review tag going away, the review information, if valid, should go under <exports>.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

Seems reasonable.

joq gravatar image joq  ( 2013-02-17 15:28:22 -0500 )edit

Not really. This means everyone has to invent their own style of putting this somewhere, making it impossible to machine-read the information. And the same problems exist as for the review tag, so it's worse in all respects.

KruseT gravatar image KruseT  ( 2013-02-17 19:53:54 -0500 )edit

i think part of the discussion was here: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ros-sig-buildsystem/GSHy2dI39gY/discussion , partly the review tag was discussed in a lengthy phone conference, the notes here http://www.ros.org/wiki/catkin/Reviews/2012-08-14_API_Review (not very verbose)

KruseT gravatar image KruseT  ( 2013-02-18 00:42:42 -0500 )edit
0

answered 2013-02-17 11:59:33 -0500

fergs gravatar image

The wiki does have "Reviews" as a Package Link -- if you create a "package/Reviews" page on the wiki (the link is hidden otherwise). For instance: http://www.ros.org/wiki/ros_comm/Reviews

This will tell you what, if any, reviews have occurred and when. But of course, does not tell you if the package has been changed significantly since review.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Question Tools

Stats

Asked: 2013-02-16 10:47:01 -0500

Seen: 160 times

Last updated: Feb 17 '13