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 <
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 <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
(text/plain)