stereo_msgs/Reviews/2010-01-18_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

• kwc

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. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?

Concerns / issues

Conclusion

kwc: message itself is well documented. The package could use at least a sentence explanation about the design of the disparity image as there was a lot of review that went into its creation.