add source/doc info to foxglove_sdk_vendor jazzy yaml#48866
add source/doc info to foxglove_sdk_vendor jazzy yaml#48866Yadunund merged 1 commit intoros:masterfrom
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for sending a pull request to ROS distro!
This is an automated tool that helps check your pull request for correctness.
This tool checks a number of attributes associated with your ROS package and generates a report that helps our reviewers merge your pull request in a timely fashion. Here are a few things to consider when sending adding or updating a package to ROS Distro.
ROS Distro includes a very helpful CONTRIBUTING.md file that we recommend reading if it is your first time submitting a package.
Please also read the ROS Distro review guidelines which summarizes this release process.
ROS Distro Considerations
- ROS Distributions are created using REP-134 Standards Track as a guide.
- Your package name should comply to REP-144 ROS Package Naming
- Your package must build for all platforms and architectures on the ROS buildfarm. See REP-2000 ROS Releases and Supported Platforms for all supported platforms for your ROS Distro.
- Your package must contain an OSI approved license. Your
package.xmlfile must also include that license in a machine readable format. See REP-149 Package Manifest Format Three Specification for additional details. - A publicly available, open source, repository for your ROS package.
- While not required, we recommend that you create an account for ROS Discourse and subscribe to the appropriate release topic.
- If you would like, you may join our Discord Server and ask questions in the
#infra-helpchannel.
Package Considerations
Having your package included in a ROS Distro is a badge of quality, and we recommend that package developers strive to create packages of the highest quality. We recommend package developers review the following resources before submitting their package.
- REP-2004 Package Quality Declaration-- The ROS 2 TSC has created a quality rating system for ROS packages. These ratings should serve as a guide for package developers. We recommend package developers achieve a quality level of three or higher.
- Documentation -- it is recommended that ROS packages include an extensive README.md file, and API level documentation using the Sphinx documentation system.
- Maintainer Responsibilities -- the ROS 2 documentation includes a guide to ROS package maintainer responsibilities that summarizes your responsibilities as an open source maintainer. While we do not enforce these requirements on package maintainers they should be considered best practices.
- We recommend that your package should strive to conform to the ROS 2 Developer Guide and the ROS 2 Style Guide.
Need Help?
Please post your questions to Robotics Stack Exchange or refer to the #infra-help channel on our Discord server.
For changes related to yamllint:
- ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jlack1987 did you mean to add this entry to rolling/distribution.yaml.
But @marcoag this also raises the questions on how a release tag was added for a package in jazzy/distribution.yaml without having it's source tag reviewed first.
fyi @mjcarroll
|
@Yadunund this is the first release of |
|
@jlack1987 we have a process of first "indexing" the package which requires an entry with only the I've opened #48869 to remove the release tag for now. Once that PR is merged, kindly rebase this PR so that it adds the If approved and indexed, you may bloom a release for the package which will open a PR to add the release tags to the |
|
Ok sorry about all this mess but I appreciate you working through it with me and helping me fix it! I think I have done my part, but let me know if I need to do anything else |
|
LGTM me now, will let @Yadunund give another look. |
Yadunund
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New package checklist
- At least one of the following must be present
- Top level license file
- Per package license files:
- License is OSI-approved:
MIT License - License correctly listed in package.xmls:
<license>MIT</license>for each package https://gitlab.com/jlack/foxglove_sdk_vendor/-/blob/main/package.xml?ref_type=heads#L10 - Public source repo: https://gitlab.com/jlack/foxglove_sdk_vendor
- Source repository contains ROS packages: Yes
- Each package meets REP-144 naming conventions
@jlack1987 while your README states MIT License, it would be good to have an explicit License file in the repo.
|
@Yadunund agreed, an oversight on my part. I have added the LICENSE file to the repo |
|
Let me know @Yadunund if there is anything further I need to do. I believe I have fulfilled the requirements but let me know if i'm still missing something |
Yadunund
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New package checklist
- At least one of the following must be present
- Top level license file: https://gitlab.com/jlack/foxglove_sdk_vendor/-/blob/main/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
- Per package license files:
- License is OSI-approved:
MIT License - License correctly listed in package.xmls:
<license>MIT</license>for each package https://gitlab.com/jlack/foxglove_sdk_vendor/-/blob/main/package.xml?ref_type=heads#L10 - Public source repo: https://gitlab.com/jlack/foxglove_sdk_vendor
- Source repository contains ROS packages: Yes
- Each package meets REP-144 naming conventions
LGTM thanks for your patience and for the iterations.
As requested in this comment I have added source/doc info to the jazzy release entry for
foxglove_sdk_vendor. Note that I do not have any personal affiliation to foxglove. Also in this thread we discuss them potentially owning this package at some future date and I will work with them if they're interested in that.