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
Sparse pose graph is a poor name #646
Labels
Comments
I like the name and how it's a reference to sparse pose adjustment.
If you wanted to convey this, a more accurate name would be e.g. 'sparsely optimised pose graph' or 'SPA pose graph'. But that would be noise :-) |
I would also argue that since |
wohe
added a commit
to wohe/rfcs
that referenced
this issue
Nov 10, 2017
All further discussion on the RFC. |
wohe
added a commit
to cartographer-project/rfcs
that referenced
this issue
Nov 14, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The name 'sparse pose graph' is a poor choice since 'pose graph' conveys all the important information and the word 'sparse' is mostly noise: there is no other (dense/non-sparse) pose graph in Cartographer.
The name is used for a subdirectory of the code, for classes
SparsePoseGraph
and in the configuration asSPARSE_POSE_GRAPH
andsparse_pose_graph.lua
. Renaming it will break users who have to adapt their configurations.Unless we can come up with an even better name, I propose dropping the word 'sparse'. Thoughts on this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: