Instructions for doing a doc review
See DocReviewProcess for more instructions
- Does the documentation define the Users of your Package, i.e. for the expected usages of your Stack, which APIs will users engage with?
- Are all of these APIs documented?
- 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?
- If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
- Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
- Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
- Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
For each launch file in a Package
- Is it clear how to run that launch file?
- Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
- Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
Concerns / issues
- documentation does not not bullet change for Electric
- geometry/Tutorials shows image_geometry tutorials, no geometry tutorials (update: removed page)
- documentation does not note new kdl stack
- should documentation note 'geometry_tutorials' somewhere? (tf-specific, btw)
- kdl 'Code API' docs goes to useless doxygen page
eigen_conversions API docs front page needs to point to useful docs instead of having default boilerplate. http://www.ros.org/doc/api/eigen_conversions/html/
- Added link to eigen conversions 'namespacetf' API docs as that appears to be the most useful
- Deleted geometry/Tutorials page, look into making the gray link disappear.
kdl: Need to investigate how to remove 'Code API' link or make it go to right page