wiki: update supported_hardware page (again)

[gavanderhoorn]

As per subject. Motoman and Fanuc entries seem rather out of date.

Formatting of the Definitions sections could perhaps be looked at as well?

[gavanderhoorn]

As an alternative to a central page on the wiki, we could migrate the information to package-specific pages and / or to the readmes of the repositories.

[gavanderhoorn]

Suggestion: make a dedicated industrial robot hw support page and remove the other sections.

[hsd-dev]

This seems to be an updated list: https://robots.ros.org/tags/#industrial
Is this page this still relevant? http://wiki.ros.org/action/fullsearch/Industrial/supported_hardware
Or can they be merged?

[gavanderhoorn]

This seems to be an updated list: https://robots.ros.org/tags/#industrial

that's a page dependent on community contributions and as such lists robots for which community members thought the tag industrial would fit.

It does not reflect the status of supported hw "within ros-industrial".

Is this page this still relevant? http://wiki.ros.org/action/fullsearch/Industrial/supported_hardware
Or can they be merged?

That page specifically documents the compatibility of specific robot & controllers with industrial_robot_client and/or their drivers. There are a few other sections on the page, but those are vestigial I believe.

We might just want to have a short list that links to the wiki pages of the various robot and other packages that we have.

We could opt for removing those pages completely and use robots.ros.org but seeing the current list of robots that are listed for the industrial tag I'm not sure whether that would not be confusing.

[robinsonmm]

I had a request from KEBA to be added to the supported_hardware page.... since they are now offering a controller that works on Hiwin and Comau robots... we could include others that offer nominal and advertised ROS interfaces.

We could seek to add Kawasaki, Epson, Staubli, and Pilz, etc...

I agree I would like it to contain the same info as the existing table, and nominally have engagement/supporting data/resources from the OEM side. I believe the table in the Wiki is more complete and therefore different than hwat is at ros.org/robots under the "industrial manipulator" category... thoughts?

[gavanderhoorn]

we could include others that offer nominal and advertised ROS interfaces.

We could seek to add Kawasaki, Epson, Staubli, and Pilz, etc...

I'm not sure I would do this: the pages under wiki/Industrial specifically document the state of "our" packages.

None of the OEMs you list there are supported "by us".

If they have ROS interfaces available those should be listed / advertised on pages outside wiki/Industrial I feel.

[robinsonmm]

Thanks for clarifying the intent regarding "our" packages. Ok, I think it is good to point those promotional opportunities for those companies.

[gavanderhoorn]

The pages would still need some cleaning up and/or updating, so I'll still mark this as a WRID19 issue.

It'll probably have to be one of us (RIC-NA, RIC-EU, RIC-APAC) that takes this one though.

[robinsonmm]

+1

…

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 9:32 AM G.A. vd. Hoorn ***@***.***> wrote: The pages would still need some cleaning up and/or updating, so I'll still mark this as a WRID19 issue. It'll probably have to be one of us (RIC-NA, RIC-EU, RIC-APAC) that takes this one though. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#32?email_source=notifications&email_token=AHJWEECNFVD6GG3KRNSGOGTP45W7BA5CNFSM4AVX52G2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODY3Z2YA#issuecomment-506961248>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHJWEEFKJB3K2TZGCZVGUZLP45W7BANCNFSM4AVX52GQ> .