pr2_simulator/Reviews/2010-01-20_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

• kwc

Instructions for doing a doc review

See DocReviewProcess for more instructions

1. Does the documentation define the Users of your Package, i.e. for the expected usages of your Stack, which APIs will users engage with?
2. Are all of these APIs documented?
3. Do relevant usages have associated tutorials? (you can ignore this if a Stack-level tutorial covers the relevant usage), and are the indexed in the right places?
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
7. Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
8. Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
9. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?

For each launch file in a Package

1. Is it clear how to run that launch file?
2. Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
3. Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?

Concerns / issues

kwc

• Roadmap is not filled in

  • Added one item: http://www.ros.org/wiki/pr2_simulator/Roadmap?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1

• Made some minor tweaks to front page to link to pr2_gazebo_plugins for supported hw

  • Thanks

• A lot of missing tutorial linkage, fixed most of them

  • Thanks. I double-checked and found no broken links.

• I cleaned up the pendulum tutorial page a little bit. The dual/multi link text is a little sparse.

  • Thanks.

• pr2_gazebo package needs to be documented

  • Will address on that review page.

• pr2_gazebo_plugin package has out-of-date doxygen

  • Will address on that review page.

Conclusion