DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>,
	Markos Chandras <mchandras@suse.de>,
	Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC: DPDK Long Term Support
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:27:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <37570042.soqC7jPioi@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160605181513.GA11762@neilslaptop.think-freely.org>

2016-06-05 14:15, Neil Horman:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:07:49PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote:
> > Introduction
> > ------------
> > 
> > This document sets out a proposal for a DPDK Long Term Support release (LTS).
> > 
> > The purpose of the DPDK LTS will be to maintain a stable release of DPDK with
> > backported bug fixes over an extended period of time. This will provide
> > downstream consumers of DPDK with a stable target on which to base
> > applications or packages.
[...]
> I'm not opposed to an LTS release, but it seems to be re-solving the issue of
> ABI breakage.  That is to say, there is alreay a process in place for managing
> ABI changes to the DPDK, which is designed to help ensure that:
> 
> 1) ABI changes are signaled at least 2 releases early
> 2) ABI changes whenever possible are designed such that backward compatibility
> versions can be encoded at the same time with versioning tags

Sorry I don't understand your point.
We are talking about two different things:
1/ ABI care for each new major release
2/ Minor release for bug fixes

I think both may exist.

> Those two mechanism are expressly intended to allow application upgrades of DPDK
> libraries without worrying about ABI breakage.  While LTS releases are a fine
> approach for  some things, they sacrifice upstream efficiency (by creating work
> for backporting teams), while allowing upstream developers more leverage to just
> create ABI breaking changes on a whim, ignoring the existing ABI compatibility
> mechanism

No it was not stated that upstream developers should ignore ABI compatibility.
Do you mean having a stable branch means ABI preservation for the next major
release is less important?

> LTS is a fine process for projects in which API/ABI breakage is either uncommon
> or fairly isolated, but that in my mind doesn't really describe DPDK.

Yes API/ABI breakages are still common in DPDK.
So it's even more important to have some stable branches.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-06  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-03 15:07 Mcnamara, John
2016-06-03 16:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-06 11:49   ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-06-06 13:31     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-06 14:14       ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-06-06 14:23         ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-07 13:17   ` Mcnamara, John
2016-06-03 18:17 ` Matthew Hall
2016-06-07 12:53   ` Mcnamara, John
2016-06-05 18:15 ` Neil Horman
2016-06-06  9:27   ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-06-06 13:47     ` Neil Horman
2016-06-06 14:21       ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-06 15:07         ` Neil Horman
2016-06-07 16:21       ` Mcnamara, John
2016-06-07 15:55   ` Mcnamara, John
2016-06-06 13:44 ` Nirmoy Das
2016-06-06 14:16   ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-06-07 12:36 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2016-06-07 19:39   ` Martinx - ジェームズ

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=37570042.soqC7jPioi@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
    --cc=mchandras@suse.de \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=pmatilai@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).