2
$\begingroup$

I have read ROS 2 document and they did not give many clues on the subject.

Does anybody have more insight on the subject?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's the long term plan, but so far, the incentive for most ROS1 users to switch is not high enough. $\endgroup$ – FooBar Jul 8 '18 at 14:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FooBar if you can provide a reference, then you should post an answer. $\endgroup$ – koverman47 Jul 9 '18 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ This is agreed indeed! $\endgroup$ – arennuit Jul 9 '18 at 19:09
2
$\begingroup$

From here

In principle, the changes described above could be integrated into the existing core ROS code. E.g., new transport technologies could be added to roscpp and rospy. We considered this option and concluded that, given the intrusive nature of the changes that would be required to achieve the benefits that we are seeking, there is too much risk associated with changing the current ROS system that is relied upon by so many people. We want ROS 1 as it exists today to keep working and be unaffected by the development of ROS 2. So ROS 2 will be built as a parallel set of packages that can be installed alongside and interoperate with ROS 1 (e.g., through message bridges).

I don't see this happening soon, but I can imagine this happening in the future. For now, ROS 2 will be developed in parallel with ROS 1 and as such these are two different projects. As like other projects in the past (the one that comes to my mind is Python 2 vs Python 3) they are supported (including releases of new features) for a long period but at some point the community wants to focus on one. I think this will happen with ROS 2 once ROS 2 reach a stable and mature state and when most of the people start using ROS 2.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.