From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CCE2BF8; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:33:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBC1CD47AD; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sopuli.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-7-204.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.204]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u379XEpp026248; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:33:15 -0400 To: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org References: <1610488.T03Kyi0Reo@xps13> <5911950.ZPQvAWoePl@xps13> Cc: techboard@dpdk.org From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <5706295A.3000406@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:33:14 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5911950.ZPQvAWoePl@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:33:16 -0000 On 04/07/2016 12:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Thank you everyone for the feedbacks. > > 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 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. Just noting that it cannot be done in 16.04 because the ABI policy requires a deprecation cycle of at least one major release for every breakage. And we're discussing a total 100% breakage of everything here, even if its just a simple rename. - Panu - > 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. > > Do not hesitate to comment. Thanks >