Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: policy on the promotion of experimental APIs

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 4:08 PM Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
>
> Clarifying the ABI policy on the promotion of experimental APIS to stable.
> We have a fair number of APIs that have been experimental for more than
> 2 years. This policy amendment indicates that these APIs should be
> promoted or removed, or should at least form a conservation between the
> maintainer and original contributor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> ---
> v2: addressing comments on abi expiry from Tyler Retzlaff.
> v3: addressing typos in the git commit message
>
>  doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst
> index 4ad87dbfed..840c295e5d 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst
> @@ -26,9 +26,10 @@ General Guidelines
>     symbols is managed with :ref:`ABI Versioning <abi_versioning>`.
>  #. The removal of symbols is considered an :ref:`ABI breakage <abi_breakages>`,
>     once approved these will form part of the next ABI version.
> -#. Libraries or APIs marked as :ref:`experimental <experimental_apis>` may
> -   be changed or removed without prior notice, as they are not considered part
> -   of an ABI version.
> +#. Libraries or APIs marked as :ref:`experimental <experimental_apis>` may be
> +   changed or removed without prior notice, as they are not considered part of
> +   an ABI version. The :ref:`experimental <experimental_apis>` status of an API
> +   is not an indefinite state.
>  #. Updates to the :ref:`minimum hardware requirements <hw_rqmts>`, which drop
>     support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an
>     ABI change.
> @@ -358,3 +359,18 @@ Libraries
>  Libraries marked as ``experimental`` are entirely not considered part of an ABI
>  version.
>  All functions in such libraries may be changed or removed without prior notice.
> +
> +Promotion to stable
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Ordinarily APIs marked as ``experimental`` will be promoted to the stable ABI
> +once a maintainer and/or the original contributor is satisfied that the API is
> +reasonably mature. In exceptional circumstances, should an API still be

Is this line with git commit message?
Why making an exceptional case? why not make it stable after two years
or remove it.
My worry is if we make an exception case, it will be difficult to
enumerate the exception case.

> +classified as ``experimental`` after two years and is without any prospect of
> +becoming part of the stable API. The API will then become a candidate for
> +removal, to avoid the acculumation of abandoned symbols.
> +
> +Should an API's Binary Interface change during the two year period, usually due
> +to a direct change in the to API's signature. It is reasonable for the expiry
> +clock to reset. The promotion or removal of symbols will typically form part of
> +a conversation between the maintainer and the original contributor.
> --
> 2.26.2
>