On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey@osrfoundation.org>wrote:

> hi Vijay,
>
> Thanks for the reply, and don't feel bad.  It didn't cause us that
> much pain (thanks to Hugo's quick thinking as to the cause).
>
> Also, to be honest, I wasn't aware that REP 9 is in effect.  I recall
> Josh writing it ages ago, but didn't know that we'd adopted it as a
> policy.  So I wouldn't have thought twice about introducing
> ABI-breaking changes myself.
>
> Of course, REP 9 is a good policy and we should all be following it.
> It probably hasn't come up much in the past because if you only
> release your code using the ROS release system, then your debs will
> all be strictly version-locked and you won't see this problem.  But
> now, people (like us) are starting to release stuff in other ways
> while depending on ROS debs.  That's a good thing, and is something
> that we should work to support.
>

My understanding of REP 9 is that ABI consistency is only required *within*
an even-cycle release, such as Fuerte or Groovy. Not *between* releases.

Is that what we are talking about here?
-- 
 joq