From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80A4A0548;
	Fri,  9 Jul 2021 21:16:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8C3416FB;
	Fri,  9 Jul 2021 21:16:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49BA410FD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  9 Jul 2021 21:16:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086)
 id 3EEB520B7178; Fri,  9 Jul 2021 12:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 3EEB520B7178
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com;
 s=default; t=1625858159;
 bh=oZrtlWx2o3SRFr4RJQR+WHAQYbIsRpsO1Bu+1AYM9Q4=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=IQRfN8UqwfHXvPM8R7KC4ub3xTAJk5oO1n1ahEycx7UQkg28e1l64wbtsijhpElF5
 l9sR4BYx10+Q57VmRVyXH+hu3o2ilPm1eLqe+GuFzWRc+lppJcSnhRORosHPh9A+X1
 Z/SQSe+JFXXh4h+KUaetGo/IKQBX3Ilpn+RwU45o=
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 12:15:59 -0700
From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Message-ID: <20210709191559.GA2540@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
References: <20210629160031.74681-1-mdr@ashroe.eu>
 <20210701103842.161275-1-mdr@ashroe.eu>
 <CALBAE1PpcJA8R-=80d4B1miidjEGU6d8d82Ohp54TouzLWqdsw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1PpcJA8R-=80d4B1miidjEGU6d8d82Ohp54TouzLWqdsw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: policy on the promotion of
 experimental APIs
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:46:54AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > +
> > +Promotion to stable
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Ordinarily APIs marked as ``experimental`` will be promoted to the stable ABI
> > +once a maintainer and/or the original contributor is satisfied that the API is
> > +reasonably mature. In exceptional circumstances, should an API still be
> 
> Is this line with git commit message?
> Why making an exceptional case? why not make it stable after two years
> or remove it.
> My worry is if we make an exception case, it will be difficult to
> enumerate the exception case.

i think the intent here is to indicate that an api/abi doesn't just
automatically become stable after a period of time.  there also has to
be an evaluation by the maintainer / community before making it stable.

so i guess the timer is something that should force that evaluation. as
a part of that evaluation one would imagine there is justification for
keeping the api as experimental for longer and if so a rationale as to
why.