Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(autoware_planning_msgs): move tier4_planning_msgs to autoware_planning_msgs #115

Closed

Conversation

cyn-liu
Copy link

@cyn-liu cyn-liu commented Dec 26, 2024

Description

In order to make the future Autoware.Core repos no longer dependent on TIER4 repos, move all tier4_planning_msgs still in use in Autoware.Universe repos to autoware_planning_msgs.

Related links

#114

How was this PR tested?

planning simulator can run successfully.

Notes for reviewers

None.

Effects on system behavior

None.

Copy link

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

@xmfcx xmfcx self-requested a review January 7, 2025 15:32
@mitsudome-r
Copy link
Member

I think most of the messages should go under autoware_internal_msgs.
We can create a new package autoware_internal_planning_msgs and add them there.

@mitsudome-r
Copy link
Member

mitsudome-r commented Jan 7, 2025

Also, I would first focus on moving the messages that are really used for Autoware.Core.
Are all the messages that you mentioned really used for the packages that you are planning to port?

@xmfcx
Copy link
Collaborator

xmfcx commented Jan 7, 2025

Can you reopen this PR within the https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware_internal_msgs ?
I'll close this PR.

(You may add it similar to https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware_internal_msgs/tree/main/autoware_internal_perception_msgs with the name autoware_internal_planning_msgs)

@xmfcx xmfcx closed this Jan 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants