[Ros-release] ABI compatibility
Jack O'Quin
jack.oquin at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 02:28:02 UTC 2013
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey at osrfoundation.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey at osrfoundation.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> hi Vijay,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply, and don't feel bad. It didn't cause us that
> >> much pain (thanks to Hugo's quick thinking as to the cause).
> >>
> >> Also, to be honest, I wasn't aware that REP 9 is in effect. I recall
> >> Josh writing it ages ago, but didn't know that we'd adopted it as a
> >> policy. So I wouldn't have thought twice about introducing
> >> ABI-breaking changes myself.
> >>
> >> Of course, REP 9 is a good policy and we should all be following it.
> >> It probably hasn't come up much in the past because if you only
> >> release your code using the ROS release system, then your debs will
> >> all be strictly version-locked and you won't see this problem. But
> >> now, people (like us) are starting to release stuff in other ways
> >> while depending on ROS debs. That's a good thing, and is something
> >> that we should work to support.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Is that what we are talking about here?
>
> Yes: pr2_mechanism had an ABI-breaking change somewhere between 1.6.1
> and 1.6.4, all of which were released into Fuerte.
>
I see.
In that case, I agree that Vijay's project should not be released until the
next distro, Groovy in this case.
--
joq
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-release/attachments/20130103/a5f7c200/attachment-0009.html>
More information about the Ros-release
mailing list