timestamp_tools/Reviews/8 Jan 2010_Doc_Review
Instructions for doing a doc review
See DocReviewProcess for more instructions
- Does the documentation define the Users of your Package, i.e. for the expected usages of your Stack, which APIs will users engage with?
- Are all of these APIs documented?
- 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?
- If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
- Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
- Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
- Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
For each launch file in a Package
- Is it clear how to run that launch file?
- Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
- Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
Concerns / issues
- There's no API, and it says so. Works for me. No changes needed.
- Looks good.