Thomas - thanks for the response. We will proceed with making the necessary changes for using v22.11.1. On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:22 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > I'm sorry Patrick that it gives you more work. > Your proposals below don't look possible because a tag is something fixed > forever. > We had an ABI issue in the initial tag so we cannot use the tag v22.11 as > planned. > I don't see how we can better plan except having more tests on release > candidates. > > > 07/12/2022 19:00, Patrick Robb: > > Hello, > > > > Community Lab team members are wondering whether it is possible to bump > > v22.11 to include at least this patch. We have an existing codebase which > > relies on a vXX.XX scheme for producing ABI references. We parse that out > > at different places in our code, so fixing this to handle vXX.XX.X will > > require some changes on our end. We can do that, but it puts the timeline > > on turning on ABI testing at the community lab back some. A v22.11 tagged > > release with this patch would allow for us to turn on ABI testing > > immediately. There was also a suggestion that having the "base" tag (like > > the simple v22.11) point to the latest revision is a more standard > version > > naming approach and may be more intuitive than what is being used > currently. > > > > If that is not possible, we will update our code to be able to refer to a > > vXX.XX.X tag for producing the ABI reference. If we adopt this approach, > we > > would like to request that with future releases, a "vXX.XX.0" tag could > > always be made available for us to produce ABI references from. That way, > > we can prepare for turning on ABI testing knowing beforehand the tag name > > we will be using. > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:25 AM Ferruh Yigit > wrote: > > > > > On 12/6/2022 10:18 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:13 AM Ferruh Yigit > > > wrote: > > > >> On 12/5/2022 3:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > >>> 05/12/2022 14:47, Akhil Goyal: > > > >>>> But adding a tag on same repo is more convenient from developer > point > > > of view. > > > >>>> However, it is my personal view, others may differ. > > > >>> > > > >>> From developer point of view, you should use > > > devtools/test-meson-builds.sh > > > >>> which does the "git clone" for you. > > > >>> > > > >>> This is what I have in ~/.config/dpdk/devel.config > > > >>> export DPDK_ABI_REF_DIR=$root/dpdk-build/abiref > > > >>> export DPDK_ABI_REF_VERSION=v22.11.1 > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Does it help to update 'test-meson-builds.sh' to use an environment > > > >> variable to select which repo to clone? > > > >> If so, I can send a patch for it. > > > > > > > > I was wondering too... > > > > I would expect most maintainers have the stable repo in their config > > > > but it would not hurt to handle the case when they don't for others. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Sent following if it helps: > > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=26015 > > > > > > -- Patrick Robb Technical Service Manager UNH InterOperability Laboratory 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824 www.iol.unh.edu