Hi Jack, Yes, Gazebo 1.3 should have waited until Hydro. It will be more damaging to revert Groovy back to Gazebo 1.2, so we will keep Gazebo 1.3 in Groovy. -nate On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Nate Koenig wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> You are right, we broke API compatibility between Gazebo 1.2 and Gazebo >> 1.3 without a proper tick-tock. Version 1.2 of Gazebo marked when Gazebo >> first started to adopt the tick-tock model, and we obviously missed a >> function. We have since improved our efforts, and there is a person looking >> into maintaining API and ABI compatibility within Gazebo. >> >> Thank you for your report and concern. We'll do our best to prevent >> future occurrences. >> > > Thanks, Nate. I appreciate all the hard work you and the Gazebo developers > are doing. It's really improving rapidly. > > It's good you are starting tick-tock now. That will help a lot. > > But, the bigger issue is that 1.3 should not have been added to ROS after > Groovy final. It needed to wait until Hydro (which is not very long). > > Regards, > -- > joq