Re: [dpdk-dev] On DPDK ABI policy

[Marc Sune <marcdevel@gmail.com>]

2016-04-07 23:52 GMT+02:00 Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>:

> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:51:35PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > LTS releases could help the situation somewhat, but then again
> > people tend to still want those new fancy things backported (you
> > know, have the cake and eat it too) but that can't be done because
> > of ABI breakage, so they're forced to run the latest version anyway.
>
> RH and Debian / Ubuntu don't put features in LTS except extremely rarely.
> Generally only if there's severe functionality breakage or security issues
> and
> the rest is ignored, and for good reason, as this is much more reliable and
> simple and predictable.
>
> If people are so irrational they can't deal with that simple of a policy,
> NEXT_ABI, LTS, etc. is never going to help them.
>
> If people like to have backported stuff, yes of course we can make trees
> and
> branches for this, they are basically free in Git. But at that point
> community
> people in need of LTS forks of features need to step up to the plate to
> help
> out.
>

Completely agree.

Marc


>
> Matthew.
>