Why duplicating velodyne_msgs?

[VRichardJP]

Messages defined in nebula's velodyne_msgs package are already defined in the widely used velodyne_msgs package:
https://github.com/ros-drivers/velodyne/tree/master/velodyne_msgs

If the point is to be able to modify the messages in the future, it would be better to rename the package to avoid name collision, for example nebula_velodyne_msgs.
If the point is to use the exact same definition than the original velodyne_msgs, then it makes more sense to add an external dependency to velodyne_msgs instead of duplicating it.

No?

[drwnz]

Thank you for the comment.
Actually, I plan to remove both velodyne_msgs and pandar_msgs and create nebula_msgs so that we can unify all sensors to a single packet message type.
In the meantime, either of your suggestions makes sense - probably we can add the dependency.
@amc-nu do you have any additional comments on this?

[xmfcx]

Related issue:

• colcon warning when using development docker for 'velodyne_msgs'  autowarefoundation/autoware#3961 (comment)

[drwnz]

@xmfcx thank you for linking this - it seems it is causing confusion, so I will remove for now, add the velodyne_msgs dependency and we will make an announcement when nebula_msgs is complete for LiDAR packet messages.

[drwnz]

Fixed with #93