<div dir="ltr">My best estimate was that rolling over the version numbers to even values would cost us a full week of work for the core team and would require every single maintainer to respond quickly to the request to rerelease. And availability of all maintainers any specific week is not likely. Because of this large overhead I didn't ask everyone to comply with that policy. You'll note I've updated the Version Policy wiki page to reflect that too. <div>
<br></div><div>I think what this points out is that we need to make sure we develop a way to know what versions of packages are available in the debian repository. And we should make the Changelogs much more visible. There was a discussion long ago about moving the Changelogs from the wiki back into the source. I think it's time to revive that discussion. Especially now that we have tools like bloom which could inject that information into the debian packages now. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Also we should update REP 9 to not reference the even odd scheme, but be more explicit about when and where things should be compatible. </div><div><br></div><div>And the last thing we should do is find a way to integrate some of the ABI checking tools into the prereleases to help maintainers know when things slip through the cracks. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Tully</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM, William Woodall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wwoodall@willowgarage.com" target="_blank">wwoodall@willowgarage.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<div>
<br></div><div>There might be other reasons, but I am not sure about those.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jack O'Quin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jack.oquin@gmail.com" target="_blank">jack.oquin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Thibault Kruse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kruset@in.tum.de" target="_blank">kruset@in.tum.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 04.01.2013 00:29, Jack O'Quin wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
Hi Jack,<br>
<br>
note that Groovy packages were released with 1.9 as version numbers, not 1.10, so there is no "even-cycle" anymore.<br>
I don't think there has been any formal announcement of this decision.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I did notice that, but assumed it was an oversight. You are saying it was intentional.</div><div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This would mean the documentation at <a href="http://www.ros.org/wiki/StackVersionPolicy" target="_blank">http://www.ros.org/wiki/<u></u>StackVersionPolicy</a> and REP9 referencing it became a little problematic with reference to "even cycles".<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, perhaps this could use some discussion. What was the rationale for abandoning the former practice?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
-- <br> joq
</font></span><br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
Ros-release mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ros-release@code.ros.org" target="_blank">Ros-release@code.ros.org</a><br>
<a href="https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release" target="_blank">https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>William Woodall<div>Willow Garage - Software Engineer</div><div><a href="mailto:wwoodall@willowgarage.com" target="_blank">wwoodall@willowgarage.com</a></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ros-release mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ros-release@code.ros.org">Ros-release@code.ros.org</a><br>
<a href="https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release" target="_blank">https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Tully Foote<br><a href="mailto:tfoote@willowgarage.com" target="_blank">tfoote@willowgarage.com</a><br>(650) 475-2827
</div>