Review documentation

[fmessmer]

@ipa-fmw @ipa-nhg @ipa-mig @ipa-bnm @ipa-rmb

As we now have consequently reviewed and beautified our repositories and code, the next step commendable contribution to the ROS community could/should be to tend our attention to documentation!

I.e. we should:

• review the maintainers mentioned in the package.xml
• review and add a meaningful description to the package.xml (with this we would also get rid of the catkin_lint warnings about boilerplate description!)
• create the wiki page - if not yet existing - (with this at least the packages could be found on the ros wiki)
• preferably we actually add and update some docu to the wiki pages

I guess a minimum wiki documentation should include a meaningful description (from package.xml) and a descriptions of the ROS interfaces, i.e. subscribed/published topics/services/action as well as configurable parameters....)

[mgruhler]

👍 Even though this will be a lot of work.
Also, I think that it would make a lot of sense to have the information about "subscribed/published topics/services/action as well as configurable parameters" in a Readme.md as well.
However, the problem is that this would actually require to do the work twice.

And as far as I see, it is not easy to convert the Readme.md to the wiki syntax due to the different special characters etc...

[fmessmer]

I think a duplicate documentation is not desired as it would introduce sync'ing efforts on top of the efforts required for actually keeping one documentation up-to-date....

I'd vote for wiki-doku!

[fmessmer]

there are a view tools that can be used for auto-generation of basic docu:

• https://github.com/bponsler/rosautodoc
• https://github.com/mikepurvis/catkin_tools_document