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 <
jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Nate Koenig <natekoenig@gmail.com>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
(text/plain)