REP 2 needs to be reviewed

[wjwwood]

The REP 2 defines the scope of stacks (now packages) which should be covered by the REP process.

This list need to be reviewed and updated.

[wjwwood]

@tfoote @dirk-thomas @esteve, For this I believe we need we to both update the scope of software described here and update the surrounding sections which describe things in terms of stacks and "bases". Should we update this or replace it with a new one which uses the new terminology and software grouping mechanisms like variants?

If we choose to just update the software defined here, then there is a prescribed process that we should follow, but if we intend to change a lot about the REP for Hydro/Indigo+ then we just propose a replacement REP instead.

Please take a moment and read it (it is pretty short) so that we all have an idea of what the state of the REP is. We can discuss what to do at the next ROS team meeting.

[esteve]

I think it's better to draft a new REP that supersedes REP-2. The changes in terminology are significant enough that justify a new REP, IMO.

[tfoote]

I agree that a replacement is a better solution.

[wjwwood]

We discussed this and decided to make a new REP, I'll leave it on my todo list.