Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] doc: clarify alias to experimental period

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

07/07/2020 19:01, Kinsella, Ray:
> On 07/07/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 07/07/2020 18:37, Kinsella, Ray:
> >> On 07/07/2020 17:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 07/07/2020 18:35, Kinsella, Ray:
> >>>> On 07/07/2020 16:26, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> 07/07/2020 16:45, Ray Kinsella:
> >>>>>> Clarify retention period for aliases to experimental.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
> >>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
> >>>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ The macros exported are:
> >>>>>>  * ``VERSION_SYMBOL_EXPERIMENTAL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version table entry
> >>>>>>    binding versioned symbol ``b@EXPERIMENTAL`` to the internal function ``be``.
> >>>>>>    The macro is used when a symbol matures to become part of the stable ABI, to
> >>>>>> -  provide an alias to experimental for some time.
> >>>>>> +  provide an alias to experimental until the next major ABI version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why limiting the period for experimental status?
> >>>>> Some API want to remain experimental longer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> +alias will then typically be dropped in the next major ABI version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see the need for the time estimation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Will reword to ...
> >>>>
> >>>> "This alias will then be dropped in the next major ABI version."
> >>>
> >>> It is not addressing my first comment. Please see above.
> >>
> >> Thank you, I don't necessarily agree with the first comment :-)
> > 
> > You don't have to agree. But in this case we must discuss :-)
> > 
> >> We need to say when the alias should be dropped no?
> > 
> > I don't think so.
> > Until now, it is let to the appreciation of the maintainer.
> > If we want to change the rule, especially for experimental period,
> > it must be said clearly and debated.
> 
> It doesn't make _any_ sense to maintain an alias after the new ABI.
> 
> The alias is there to maintain ABI compatibility, 
> there is no reason to maintain compatibility in the new ABI - so it should be dropped

Yes I was wrong, sorry.