There might be other reasons, but I am not sure about those.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Thibault Kruse <kruset@in.tum.de> 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