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.