Revival of client library working group?

General
1

Hi,
are there any plans, to revive this working group ?

2

AFAIK, no. recently this WG does not have any activities… :sweat:

3

I am aware, that there was no recent activity (documented here About Working Groups — ROS 2 Documentation: Humble documentation). Therefore my question, if there are plans to revive the group, as I currently see a need for it.

4

It would be interested in such a WG. I’m still waiting that someone writes a ROS2 client library for Julia since I didn’t manage to find time to do it myself.

5

This would be outside of the scope of this WG.
See GitHub - ros2-client-libraries-wg/community for reference.

6

@gbiggs & @alsora you are listed as leaders of the workgroup, can you fill us in on the status of it ?

7

The status is what you see.

The WG hasn’t met in a while, due to lack of topics and participation.

Although we could just send out an invite for a meeting, I doubt there will be many people showing up unless we first show that there’s interest for it (and in 1 week that this has been up, I see only the two of you (@JM_ROS and @AndreasZiegler ) asking for it.

8

I can see the lack of participation, but not the lack of topics.

It is stated, that this WG should move the pull requests of the core packages forward.
Currently we have over 100 PRs piling up in rclcpp, rcl and rclpy.

9

This WG never treated those PRs as a “backlog to be reviewed”.

If you were a developer and you had a PR stuck in review → you come to the WG for advice, reviving the discussion, live feedbacks, etc.
If you are looking to open a large PR and you want to get a design discussion, then you could come to the WG.

It was the developer’s duty to be proactive.
This also to avoid spending time reviewing a large PR, where the owner then doesn’t follow with the required changes.

Reviewing PRs in the client library is something everyone can do, regardless of the WG.
Everyone is doing this volountarily, so you can’t really “force” people to go and review things, and those that would do it, are still doing it regardless of the WG’s presence.

(I’m not saying that this is the correct or the only way to handle things, but simply that’s how it was with this WG)

1 Like
10

Both true for me, so can we have a meeting ?

11

I would be happy to host a meeting, but first I would like to see some more interest here on Discourse.
Having a meeting with only 2-3 people won’t be that helpful.

1 Like
12

@alsora you can count me in. depends on schedule but i will try to be there. it is 3 now :smile: hopefully we can have more developers.

@JM_ROS thanks for bring this up. if you have specific topics already, why dont we post the ideas here before setting up meeting? that is gonna get us more attention from other developers?

13

For anyone interested in the client library working group, I created a poll for possible meeting times.
Let’s use that to select a time and also to measure interest.

The meeting proposals are for the week of March 18th, but if there’s consensus and participation, it could become the “official time” to meet every two weeks.

2 Likes
14

I am also interested, but since I’m in Japan, the proposed times don’t seem to work so well… My topic of choice would be the performance of rclpy!

15

Current topics from my side:

It would be great if @mjcarroll and @wjwwood could attend to the meeting.

1 Like
16

There are two slots on Thursday and one on Friday
@alsora can you pick one and post a link to the meeting?

17

Let’s go ahead with the friday’s slot (Friday 8 AM Pacific Time)

I’ll send out a meeting invite (and post it here).

18

@alsora thanks for facilitating. i am gonna be late for like 10mins to drop off boys to schools, but will be there.

19

I started a new thread to announce to next meeting: ROS 2 Client Library WG meeting 22 March 2024

Find here:

20

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.