Jon Binney expressed the same opinion as you guys in the tickets and
provided a sample script that would go through and update all instances in
a code base:

https://github.com/ros/ros_comm/issues/346#issuecomment-36440175

In principle I agree with with tick-tock'ing the api through indigo and
j-turtle, but I am concerned about the maintenance burden it might inflict
on us (issues and Q&A questions), but as long as we have a clear document
to point people at with the rational, ways to fix it, and maybe something
like the script Jon made I think we can handle it.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Paul Mathieu
<paul.mathieu@pal-robotics.com>wrote:

> Right now, it appears that the default setting is easily broken for a
>> minority of use cases and non-intuitive to debug. And that would be good to
>> amend. Better to have it working everywhere and optimisable for power use
>> cases.
>>
>> Adding some notes on the wiki probably won't do much to notify existing
>> users - typically copy/pasting from nearby code what I do.
>>
>> So back to my earlier question - is setting a queue size expensive in the
>> python implementation? If there isn't a technical weakness there, then I'm
>> all for a) warnings and a migration point sometime in the future - it
>> wouldn't be very costly to mechanically search and destroy all
>> rospy.Publisher instances in a ros workspace.
>>
>
> I agree with Daniel. Changing the default will break existing code, but if
> the default is undesirable in a non-negligible amount of cases, then it
> should be changed.
> I would be in favor for a warning in Indigo, and a change of behavior in
> J-turtle.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>


-- 
William Woodall
ROS Development Team
william@osrfoundation.org
http://williamjwoodall.com/