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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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.