From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
To: Marc Sune <marcdevel@gmail.com>
Cc: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:48:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160407214843.GA28667@mhcomputing.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+3n-ToGtVRLXu2S8J2a14cDYHhfUDZixdAY3mM5xWtERbYh0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Marc Sune wrote:
> I keep not understanding the ABI policy, and particularly why ABI changes
> have to be announced once cycle before _if_ there is already at least one
> ABI change proposed. DPDK applications will have to recompile anyway.
>
> This aspect of the policy only slows down DPDK development and it pollutes
> the repository with commits announcing ABI changes that are irrelevant
> after 2 cycles, as (code) diffs show that already (not mentioning NEXT_ABI
> complexity and extra LOCs).
>
> Maintaining LTS releases, and enforcing bug fixing in old LTS first,
> upstreaming bugfixes is to me a much better approach to solve backwards
> compatibility issues.
>
> But this is probably another discussion.
Yes, separate discussion. But I agree 100,000%. As a community member in my
spare time I get tripped up by NEXT_ABI pollution just trying to submit
trivial patches all the time, then I don't really have any good idea how to
fix it, and I have to annoy Thomas with dumb questions across the time zones.
I would really prefer to dump all the drama about ABIs and make a maintenance
only LTS release which only gets bug fixes people specifically need and not
random fixes or features.
Matthew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-07 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-05 13:56 Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-05 14:13 ` Trahe, Fiona
2016-04-05 14:31 ` Trahe, Fiona
2016-04-05 14:31 ` Arnon Warshavsky
2016-04-06 5:26 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-04-06 12:07 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-04-06 12:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-04-06 14:36 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-04-06 20:21 ` Dave Neary
2016-04-07 8:22 ` Marc
2016-04-11 16:10 ` Don Provan
2016-04-11 16:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-06 12:41 ` Jay Rolette
2016-04-06 12:51 ` Mcnamara, John
2016-04-07 9:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-07 9:33 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-04-07 10:16 ` Marc Sune
2016-04-07 11:51 ` [dpdk-dev] On DPDK ABI policy Panu Matilainen
2016-04-07 21:52 ` Matthew Hall
2016-04-08 8:29 ` Marc Sune
2016-04-08 8:47 ` Marc Sune
2016-04-07 21:48 ` Matthew Hall [this message]
2016-04-07 22:01 ` [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160407214843.GA28667@mhcomputing.net \
--to=mhall@mhcomputing.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=marcdevel@gmail.com \
--cc=pmatilai@redhat.com \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).