From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3C7A055D; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:17:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE7116090A; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:17:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DDC16090A for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:17:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1613733456; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EmSWmhXf135jPaaVtNouQig20EhGfEV8XrqHrj26Fjs=; b=Nt+M+/FXW9HmoLAYJly6A3vjdfhuERrBMYGnQJLcvhuFlZfdsDFjokNpZipHp0Zfo7crhJ RD1GrBvVaUMGaaAVoWWHHTBI482fNTnBAnTjw2n9mbxYYSNPTojjnxlojbrMe+e3zitLoX AxZC7KN34B6r5DeqcznLMSfG5Far8sg= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-226-20qgx7n6O8O7MOOKR2hFOw-1; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 06:17:33 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 20qgx7n6O8O7MOOKR2hFOw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94122CE647; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rh.redhat.com (ovpn-112-169.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.169]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB916100164C; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:17:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Traynor To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: stable@dpdk.org, bluca@debian.org, christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, Kevin Traynor Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:17:11 +0000 Message-Id: <20210219111711.416979-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=ktraynor@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: update stable section X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Updating the docs to elaborate on the stable release characteristics and better document the current practice about new features in stable releases. Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor --- v2: Send to right dev list this time. Fix typo. --- doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst index 20b081670..7a0a505aa 100644 --- a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst @@ -19,4 +19,8 @@ consumers of DPDK with a stable target on which to base applications or packages. +The primary characteristics of stable releases is that they attempt to +fix issues and not introduce any new regressions while keeping backwards +compatibility with the initial release of the stable version. + The Long Term Support release (LTS) is a designation applied to a Stable Release to indicate longer term support. @@ -94,12 +98,29 @@ commit message body as follows:: Fixes not suitable for backport should not include the ``Cc: stable@dpdk.org`` tag. -Features should not be backported to stable releases. It may be acceptable, in -limited cases, to back port features for the LTS release where: +To support the goal of stability and not introducing regressions, new code +being introduced is limited to bug fixes. New features should not be backported +to stable releases. -* There is a justifiable use case (for example a new PMD). -* The change is non-invasive. -* The work of preparing the backport is done by the proposer. -* There is support within the community. +In some limited cases, it may be acceptable to backport a new feature +to a stable release. Some of the factors which impact the decision by +stable maintainers are as follows: +* Does the feature break API/ABI? +* Does the feature break backwards compatibility? +* Is it for the latest LTS release (to avoid LTS upgrade issues)? +* Is there a commitment from the proposer or affiliation to validate the feature and check for regressions in related functionality? +* Is there a track record of the proposer or affiliation validating stable releases? +* Is it obvious that the feature will not impact existing functionality? +* How intrusive is the code change? +* What is the scope of the code change? +* Does it impact common components or vendor specific? +* Is there a justifiable use case (a clear user need)? +* Is there a community consensus about the backport? + +Performance improvements are generally not considered to be fixes, but may be considered +in some cases where: + +* It is fixing a performance regression that occurred previously. +* An existing feature in LTS is not usable as intended without it. The Stable Mailing List -- 2.26.2