On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Brian Gerkey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Brian Gerkey > > 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? > > Yes: pr2_mechanism had an ABI-breaking change somewhere between 1.6.1 > and 1.6.4, all of which were released into Fuerte. > I see. In that case, I agree that Vijay's project should not be released until the next distro, Groovy in this case. -- joq