-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PX4Flow Warning #2449
PX4Flow Warning #2449
Conversation
From a Community Q&A https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-community-q-a-april-12-2023/31552
This pull request has been mentioned on Discussion Forum for PX4, Pixhawk, QGroundControl, MAVSDK, MAVLink. There might be relevant details there: https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-community-q-a-april-12-2023/31552/1 |
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@ | |||
# PX4FLOW Smart Camera | |||
|
|||
:::warning | |||
The PX4 Team does not recomend the PX4FLOW for new designs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mcsauder @mrpollo A note is great, but this isn't actually all that helpful because as a reader I have no idea whether this is a transient problem, or something I might fix in another way. For example, if this is a PX4 problem I might want to revert to PX4 v1.13 - would it work then? Will my vehicle stop working if I upgrade to this version?
What I normally do in this case is reference a PX4-Autopilot issue - that makes it clear what the problem is, and users can see from that what versions it applies to, and whether it is likely to be fixed. If it gets closed then they know the answer is "no".
Can we have that kind of link here. Also fix the typo "recommend"?
PS IN addition, eventually it allows me to delete the page, if we no longer support this hardware.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @hamishwillee ! Please advise on this. The consensus after I worked with this sensor for the past few weeks and everyone on yesterday's call and last week's was that this sensor should no longer be supported but we need a polite way to indicate this. The firmware on the sensor appears to be broken, and the firmware on the PX4 side might also not be quite working. Either way, at present, it is entirely dysfunctional. Your advice is very welcomed!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mcsauder Thanks very much.
My take on this is that if we know it doesn't work we try to help people not waste time on it by making that clear.
Further, if we know now that even if the firmware was fixed it probably wouldn't work and we won't do anything to make it work, then we should removed the docs.
So what I have done in #2463 is replace the content in the page with a link to the legacy docs. It looks like this:
I assume it might work if you can get legacy firmware and older PX4? If not, I'd just say "not supported".
If the situation was that we intended to support this in future then I'd have a note that indicates it does not work and a link to the PX4 Autopilot issue tracking it.
Does that make sense?
Note that older docs won't make this clear, which is a pity. But we can't maintain everything. I have a possible solution for this that doesn't require "much" maintenance. Not imminent though.
From a Community Q&A
https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-community-q-a-april-12-2023/31552