Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace

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

2016-04-07 11:18, Thomas Monjalon:
> 2016-04-05 15:56, Thomas Monjalon:
> > The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is
> > to fix the DPDK namespace.
> 
> Everybody agree every symbols must be prefixed. Checking and fixing the
> namespace consistency will be in the roadmap.
> 
> It seems most of you agree renaming would be a nice improvement but not
> so important.

The main benefits are:
- consistency with the name of the project
- avoid a namespace clash with another library using "rte" prefix
(the dpdk word is kind of reserved now)

> The main drawback is the induced backporting pain, even if we have
> some scripts to convert the patches to the old namespace.
> Note: the backports can be in DPDK itself or in the applications.
> 
> > If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to
> > introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_"
> > during some time.
> > We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto)
> > or when there is a significant API break (example: mempool).
> 
> The slow change has been clearly rejected in favor of a complete change
> in one patch.
> The timing was also discussed as it could impact the pending patches.
> So it would be done at the end or the beginning of a release.
> Marc suggests to do it for 16.04 as the numbering scheme has changed.
> 
> There is no strong conclusion at this point because we need to decide
> wether the renaming deserves to be done or never.
> I suggest to take the inputs from the technical board.

The technical board has agreed that the renaming cannot happen in 16.04.
The pro/cons balance need to be discussed more.
The plan is to keep the discussion open during the next 2 weeks and
take a decision based on the discussion outcome.