Sync indigo and jade branches?

[sachinchitta]

I see differences between indigo and jade for this package. Was the intention to sync them before doing a release? @jrgnicho

[jrgnicho]

@sachinchitta I was not aware that these changes were made. I can sync those changes into jade-devel before the release.

[gavanderhoorn]

What changes are we talking about here exactly? Cause looking at the diff between indigo-devel and jade-devel, there are only commits from #51 (and two minor ones from me) that are not supposed to go into indigo-devel afaict.

[jrgnicho]

@gavanderhoorn I was referring to the minor documentation changes, but you are right there are also changes from #51 . If I remember correctly the changes in #51 should've been merge to indigo-devel (see #50) as as part of an change in the moveit_core/KinematicsBase that involved multiple repos.

[gavanderhoorn]

Looking at the comment history of #51 (and also moveit/moveit_core#248), it would seem as if we collectively decided not to merge #50 (into indigo-devel), which was why #51 was opened. This is also how I remember it.

We can probably merge this into indigo-devel as well, but afaict, all other related changes have only gone into jade-devel (in ros-planning/moveit_core fi).

[jrgnicho]

From briefly looking at the commit history in the indigo-devel branches, I can see that the related changes in moveit_ros 10/03/2015 and int moveit_core 10/08/2015 were merged. I think we should merge here in order to be consistent with the changes made in the related repositories.

[jrgnicho]

@gavanderhoorn , I can go ahead and create a new PR to merge the changes in #50 into indigo-devel if that is OK with you

[gavanderhoorn]

I feel it's strange to introduce these changes into an LTS release, but seeing as the related PRs have been merged into indigo-devel branches in other repositories, we'll have to do that in moveit_ikfast as well.

@jrgnicho: if you can provide a PR for this?

[jrgnicho]

@gavanderhoorn yes, I can do that.

[davetcoleman]

This issue can be closed because its related PR, #57, was closed