Reviewer: Tully Foote

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

  • Is the version that we're using correct? Yes latest released
  • Is it clear to an outside user which version we're using, and why? Yes well documented in manifest
  • Is this package available from the OS package managers instead? There is a strong preference to using these instead of maintaining our own Not available
  • Have all patches been submitted back? What version do you expect these patches to be included in? All patches have been documented in the manifest with links to the issues in the bullet project.


Wiki: bullet/Reviews/2009-09-29 Doc Review (last edited 2009-09-29 20:09:42 by wim)