Michel Hidalgo

@wjwwood does this still apply? Or should we drop it?

@ivanpauno before commenting anything, why explicitly list all processes instead of using process groups (and whatever Windows has as an equivalent)?

First of all, it's important not to mix up ROS 2 node arguments with ROS 2 cli arguments. `--ros-args` applies to ROS 2 nodes **only**. You may pass it to...

Hmm, @v-lopez this looks like Gazebo not forwarding signals properly. Would you mind trying to force [`launch_testing`'s `LaunchService` instance](https://github.com/ros2/launch/blob/2b828e27b22597ec6a49369e9835462588af209e/launch_testing/launch_testing/test_runner.py#L46) to be [non-interactive](https://github.com/ros2/launch/blob/2b828e27b22597ec6a49369e9835462588af209e/launch/launch/launch_service.py#L57)? If that fixes the issue, we can submit...

@fas2037 `SetEnvironmentVariable` mutates the environment of `launch` itself (which is one, later propagated to its children). Even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't do what you expect since...

@Aposhian hmm, a `ProcessExited` event seems inadequate if no process was ever started. Letting the exception bubble up to the [event loop exception handler](https://github.com/ros2/launch/blob/5d05613208e4668106419017b087048212ba1012/launch/launch/launch_service.py#L280-L284) is perhaps best. @wjwwood @ivanpauno WDYT?

This is a known TBD. XML and YAML launch frontend packages could do a better job reporting source errors. All contributions to improve the current state are much appreciated.

> I think that making the "include" action scoped by default is a good idea. I agree, but I also think `include` and `group` actions should scope the same way....

@m-morelli to the best of my knowledge, execution across multiple machines is still a work in progress. See https://github.com/ros2/design/pull/297 and https://github.com/ros2/design/pull/272.

@lukicdarkoo have you considered: > With that in mind, I'd suggest we add support for a condition to respawn in addition to plain booleans, instead of hard-coding this check. ?