I think that is exactly the problem. Come release time that would mean incrementing the version of our now 400+ packages for no reason other than incrementing the versions. There might be other reasons, but I am not sure about those. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Thibault Kruse wrote: > >> On 04.01.2013 00:29, Jack O'Quin wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Hi Jack, >> >> note that Groovy packages were released with 1.9 as version numbers, not >> 1.10, so there is no "even-cycle" anymore. >> I don't think there has been any formal announcement of this decision. >> > > I did notice that, but assumed it was an oversight. You are saying it was > intentional. > > This would mean the documentation at http://www.ros.org/wiki/** >> StackVersionPolicy and REP9 >> referencing it became a little problematic with reference to "even cycles". >> > > It could be updated to maintaining ABI compatibility any time the major > and minor numbers remain unchanged. That leaves a period of user > uncertainty during the unstable period before a release when ABI-breaking > changes are actually allowed. > > So, perhaps this could use some discussion. What was the rationale for > abandoning the former practice? > > The only problem I know about is that the even-number rule frequently > forces additional package releases just to bump version numbers from 1.9.x > to 1.10.0. > -- > joq > _______________________________________________ > Ros-release mailing list > Ros-release@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release > > -- William Woodall Willow Garage - Software Engineer wwoodall@willowgarage.com