Current quality level declarations #67
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR. The main thing I think is missing is corroborating evidence for many of the claims. I know linking to some of these things may not be straight-forward. For example, some of the CI links may be too general and not specific to this package.
Until we have a better solution, I think it's best to add the best links we can provide, than no links at all. We need to think of this from the point of view of someone who's not familiar with ROS or this package. They could use some direction to how the claims can be verified.
|
According with the REP 2004 we need to:
|
|
READMEs are being added in #64. To avoid merge conflicts and PR dependencies, I'll add these declaration links to the READMEs after that PR is merged in. |
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
083866f
to
260f1af
Compare
Signed-off-by: Stephen Brawner <brawner@gmail.com>
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
260f1af
to
74eee8c
Compare
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
ba608a2
to
86a7ccc
Compare
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
86a7ccc
to
e0b7102
Compare
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
e0b7102
to
fc93db0
Compare
|
@Blast545 has added a table with the current status of the QD https://github.com/ros2/rcutils/blob/0f448769ee02bb38231cd7656e9e75dc5939212d/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md I think it worth it to include it. What do you think about adding a new column with the QD that we are targeting. |
brawner
force-pushed
the
quality_declarations
branch
from
e9f57ef
to
11102ec
Compare
|
Following up on table discussion in slack. I fixed my CI links and added the documentation policy section. |
This PR adds current quality declarations for both packages as QL 4. With PR #63 and #64 they can almost be QL 3 or even QL 2, but the version will also need to be bumped to 1.0.