Skip to content
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

Pkg name does not correspond to directory name #89

Open
gavanderhoorn opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

Pkg name does not correspond to directory name #89

gavanderhoorn opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

The package manifest gives the package name as urdf_builder (here), while the files live in a directory called urdf_editor.

This is confusing. Either the package name should be changed to urdf_editor, or the directory to urdf_builder.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member Author

This is a minor issue and will be fixed after all outstanding PRs are merged.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member Author

@ros-industrial-consortium/cad-to-ros-pull @Levi-Armstrong: should it be urdf_builder, urdf_editor or something else?

@Levi-Armstrong
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, So when I started this I was just imagining to edit values of an existing urdf but as time went on it morphed into more of a builder so I changed the name.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member Author

Hm, but a text editor can be used to create new files as well ;).

@Kukanani
Copy link

urdf_editor makes more sense to me. We have text editors, level editors, map editors...

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member Author

I'm planning on renaming the package to urdf_editor this weekend if there are no objections. This should actually be a minor change, as it would only require updating the manifest and the CMakeLists.txt.

Levi-Armstrong added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 25, 2016
Fix for issue #89: make package name consistent with directory name
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants