Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/4] docs: Add ABI documentation

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-01-21 14:43, Neil Horman:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:51PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-01-21 09:59, Neil Horman:
> > > Considered and answered already.  I'm in favor of listing macros and structure
> > > changes in the abi document, but I think an exhaustive list isn't needed.  If it
> > > is, we could spend pages diving into minute.  Better to point out the need for
> > > abi noticies as patches get posted.
> > 
> > I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying. Copy/paste:
> > "No, I was suggesting to explain in this doc that macro removal must be
> > announced with a deprecation notice,
> > and that in case structure must be reworked, the name must change if we
> > want to preserve ABI compatibility with old structure."
> > Rewording: if you agree with this policy, please add it in this document.
> > 
> Yes, we're on the same page regarding what your asking, I just don't agree that
> it needs to be explicitly called out.  I thought I was clear on that.
> Appaerntly not however, so if it will settle the point, I'll just add it.

OK maybe I didn't explain enough my proposal.
You can disagree but I want to be sure we think about the same thing.

1) Macros are not part of the ABI but can be part of the API.
Such macro removal must be announced in the previous release.
2) Structures are part of the ABI but cannot be versionned as the functions.
So an ABI breaking change should be done by cloning the structure in a new one.
And the API functions where this structure appears should be cloned and versionned
to support new structure while keeping old version.

Maybe that these precisions are confuse and useless.
Now I think I understand what you were saying by "an exhaustive list isn't needed".
You mean listing all types of ABI/API breakage like I did with these 2 cases, right?
I thought it was related to list of real/effective deprecations.

> > > > Neil, we expect that you consider comments done previously and that you test your patch.
> > > > Otherwise, we are losing time in useless reviews.
> > > > 
> > > Thomas, I have considered your comments, I simply don't agree with all of them,
> > > and I made that clear.
> > > 
> > > As for losing time, you let the first attempt at this
> > > patch rot on the list in 1.7 and have done the same thing for the 1.8 cycle
> > > until I yelled for reviews.
> > 
> > Now, I'm really upset of your wrong assumptions.
> > You sent your first proposal on september, during 1.8 cycle, not 1.7 !
> > And during this cycle, the decision was to postpone it for 2.0 release.
> > 
> you're missing the point. I apologize for not getting the release numbers right,
> it should be 1.8 to 2.0 not 1.7 to 1.8 as you note, but that doesn't really
> matter.  The point was 6 months.  6 months this has been sitting around.

No, 5 months. Yes, it's long.

> In that time up to this point I've gotten one review from another devloper on the
> set, and you indicating that its not ready yet.  Then, the day 1.8 released, I
> reposed the patch series as we agreed, and its taken almost 5 weeks before I've
> gotten any feedback on it, and then its feedback that could have been given 6
> months ago (you'll note this patch was initially identical to the version I
> posted back in september).  I think you can understand how I find that
> frustrating.

You must understand that I'd prefer more people feel involved by this change.
It would be saner to have this policy reviewed and acked by many developpers.
As it was announced on the roadmap for 2.0, this first month of the cycle was
ideal to have more discussions on how this policy can be precisely applied.
You only received my comments (which may be useless) and it's now time to
apply this important patchset.

> > I don't understand what's wrong with you.
> The above is whats wrong with me.  The fact that I can try and try and try to
> add value to this project so that I can expand its user base, and the best I've
> thus far been able to receive is indifference.  At worst, the indifference is
> followed by being told that the indifference is tantamount to rejection.
> 
> 
> > You don't make any effort to understand what we are saying and
> > you make no effort to understand what is this doc directory.
> > You prefer crying that your patch is not applied.
> No effort?  How many emails have I written contesting your opinions, presenting
> supporting evidence, only to be met with assertions?  I don't think I'm the one
> not making an effort here.

At the end, I accept your point of view and will apply the patchset.

> > And I still don't understand if you are willing to work on a test tool for ABI?
> > 
> From this email
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-January/011306.html
> 
> =======================================================
> > Yes, it should be another patchset.
> > Do you plan to work on it? It would be very convenient for developpers and
> > maintainers to test ABI compatibility.
> > 
> Gladly, if we can get this in.  I think its an important tool.
> =========================================================
> 
> I'm not sure how thats unclear, but in the event that it wasn't, yes, I will
> gladly work on such a tool.

OK thanks, it would be helpful to have it in release 2.0.

> > > No doubt when all is said and done here you'll
> > > complain because this series likely won't work when you apply it for all the
> > > patches you take between the time I posted it and now.  So lets be careful about
> > > complaining over wasted time.
> > 
> > Note that I'm sure we can do some good work together. And I'd prefer more
> > pleasant discussions. Life is too short to have this kind of conflict.
> > 
> I agree, and we've done so in the past.  I'm sorry if I've upset you, it wasn't
> my intention.  That said, can you see how I might be frustrated by this patch
> set taking 6 months to get reviewed, only to have commentary made on it that I
> could have handled back at the beginning of this whole mess?

Yes, I was hoping more people would participate in this discussion.

> Participation.  Thats really whats needed here.  Not just from you, not just
> from me, everyone, and not just on the items that we consider important to
> ourselves.  Indifference leads to exclusion and frustration.

You're totally right. Participation is the key.
Sometimes, we have to *carefully* review patches whose we have no interest.
And maybe someone else will do the same thing for a patch we care.
This is a message ;)

-- 
Thomas