From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6162A32A2 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:10:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6311C2DB; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:10:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay0164.mxlogin.com (relay0164.mxlogin.com [199.181.239.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252171C2B6 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:10:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from filter004.mxroute.com (unknown [116.203.155.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay0164.mxlogin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08AE0CC50322; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:10:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from galaxy.mxroute.com (unknown [23.92.70.113]) by filter004.mxroute.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA3C3E9F8; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.198.151.44] by galaxy.mxroute.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1iNvRA-0001vH-66; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 04:59:12 -0400 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, jerinj@marvell.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com, marko.kovacevic@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, aconole@redhat.com References: <1569603283-1857-1-git-send-email-mdr@ashroe.eu> <1569603283-1857-3-git-send-email-mdr@ashroe.eu> <10410603.iXVFKWJQZn@xps> From: Ray Kinsella Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=mdr@ashroe.eu; keydata= mQINBFv8B3wBEAC+5ImcgbIvadt3axrTnt7Sxch3FsmWTTomXfB8YiuHT8KL8L/bFRQSL1f6 ASCHu3M89EjYazlY+vJUWLr0BhK5t/YI7bQzrOuYrl9K94vlLwzD19s/zB/g5YGGR5plJr0s JtJsFGEvF9LL3e+FKMRXveQxBB8A51nAHfwG0WSyx53d61DYz7lp4/Y4RagxaJoHp9lakn8j HV2N6rrnF+qt5ukj5SbbKWSzGg5HQF2t0QQ5tzWhCAKTfcPlnP0GymTBfNMGOReWivi3Qqzr S51Xo7hoGujUgNAM41sxpxmhx8xSwcQ5WzmxgAhJ/StNV9cb3HWIoE5StCwQ4uXOLplZNGnS uxNdegvKB95NHZjRVRChg/uMTGpg9PqYbTIFoPXjuk27sxZLRJRrueg4tLbb3HM39CJwSB++ YICcqf2N+GVD48STfcIlpp12/HI+EcDSThzfWFhaHDC0hyirHxJyHXjnZ8bUexI/5zATn/ux TpMbc/vicJxeN+qfaVqPkCbkS71cHKuPluM3jE8aNCIBNQY1/j87k5ELzg3qaesLo2n1krBH bKvFfAmQuUuJT84/IqfdVtrSCTabvDuNBDpYBV0dGbTwaRfE7i+LiJJclUr8lOvHUpJ4Y6a5 0cxEPxm498G12Z3NoY/mP5soItPIPtLR0rA0fage44zSPwp6cQARAQABtBxSYXkgS2luc2Vs bGEgPG1kckBhc2hyb2UuZXU+iQJUBBMBCAA+FiEEcDUDlKDJaDuJlfZfdJdaH/sCCpsFAlv8 B3wCGyMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQdJdaH/sCCptdtRAAl0oE msa+djBVYLIsax+0f8acidtWg2l9f7kc2hEjp9h9aZCpPchQvhhemtew/nKavik3RSnLTAyn B3C/0GNlmvI1l5PFROOgPZwz4xhJKGN7jOsRrbkJa23a8ly5UXwF3Vqnlny7D3z+7cu1qq/f VRK8qFyWkAb+xgqeZ/hTcbJUWtW+l5Zb+68WGEp8hB7TuJLEWb4+VKgHTpQ4vElYj8H3Z94a 04s2PJMbLIZSgmKDASnyrKY0CzTpPXx5rSJ1q+B1FCsfepHLqt3vKSALa3ld6bJ8fSJtDUJ7 JLiU8dFZrywgDIVme01jPbjJtUScW6jONLvhI8Z2sheR71UoKqGomMHNQpZ03ViVWBEALzEt TcjWgJFn8yAmxqM4nBnZ+hE3LbMo34KCHJD4eg18ojDt3s9VrDLa+V9fNxUHPSib9FD9UX/1 +nGfU/ZABmiTuUDM7WZdXri7HaMpzDRJUKI6b+/uunF8xH/h/MHW16VuMzgI5dkOKKv1LejD dT5mA4R+2zBS+GsM0oa2hUeX9E5WwjaDzXtVDg6kYq8YvEd+m0z3M4e6diFeLS77/sAOgaYL 92UcoKD+Beym/fVuC6/55a0e12ksTmgk5/ZoEdoNQLlVgd2INtvnO+0k5BJcn66ZjKn3GbEC VqFbrnv1GnA58nEInRCTzR1k26h9nmS5Ag0EW/wHfAEQAMth1vHr3fOZkVOPfod3M6DkQir5 xJvUW5EHgYUjYCPIa2qzgIVVuLDqZgSCCinyooG5dUJONVHj3nCbITCpJp4eB3PI84RPfDcC hf/V34N/Gx5mTeoymSZDBmXT8YtvV/uJvn+LvHLO4ZJdvq5ZxmDyxfXFmkm3/lLw0+rrNdK5 pt6OnVlCqEU9tcDBezjUwDtOahyV20XqxtUttN4kQWbDRkhT+HrA9WN9l2HX91yEYC+zmF1S OhBqRoTPLrR6g4sCWgFywqztpvZWhyIicJipnjac7qL/wRS+wrWfsYy6qWLIV80beN7yoa6v ccnuy4pu2uiuhk9/edtlmFE4dNdoRf7843CV9k1yRASTlmPkU59n0TJbw+okTa9fbbQgbIb1 pWsAuicRHyLUIUz4f6kPgdgty2FgTKuPuIzJd1s8s6p2aC1qo+Obm2gnBTduB+/n1Jw+vKpt 07d+CKEKu4CWwvZZ8ktJJLeofi4hMupTYiq+oMzqH+V1k6QgNm0Da489gXllU+3EFC6W1qKj tkvQzg2rYoWeYD1Qn8iXcO4Fpk6wzylclvatBMddVlQ6qrYeTmSbCsk+m2KVrz5vIyja0o5Y yfeN29s9emXnikmNfv/dA5fpi8XCANNnz3zOfA93DOB9DBf0TQ2/OrSPGjB3op7RCfoPBZ7u AjJ9dM7VABEBAAGJAjwEGAEIACYWIQRwNQOUoMloO4mV9l90l1of+wIKmwUCW/wHfAIbDAUJ CWYBgAAKCRB0l1of+wIKm3KlD/9w/LOG5rtgtCUWPl4B3pZvGpNym6XdK8cop9saOnE85zWf u+sKWCrxNgYkYP7aZrYMPwqDvilxhbTsIJl5HhPgpTO1b0i+c0n1Tij3EElj5UCg3q8mEc17 c+5jRrY3oz77g7E3oPftAjaq1ybbXjY4K32o3JHFR6I8wX3m9wJZJe1+Y+UVrrjY65gZFxcA thNVnWKErarVQGjeNgHV4N1uF3pIx3kT1N4GSnxhoz4Bki91kvkbBhUgYfNflGURfZT3wIKK +d50jd7kqRouXUCzTdzmDh7jnYrcEFM4nvyaYu0JjSS5R672d9SK5LVIfWmoUGzqD4AVmUW8 pcv461+PXchuS8+zpltR9zajl72Q3ymlT4BTAQOlCWkD0snBoKNUB5d2EXPNV13nA0qlm4U2 GpROfJMQXjV6fyYRvttKYfM5xYKgRgtP0z5lTAbsjg9WFKq0Fndh7kUlmHjuAIwKIV4Tzo75 QO2zC0/NTaTjmrtiXhP+vkC4pcrOGNsbHuaqvsc/ZZ0siXyYsqbctj/sCd8ka2r94u+c7o4l BGaAm+FtwAfEAkXHu4y5Phuv2IRR+x1wTey1U1RaEPgN8xq0LQ1OitX4t2mQwjdPihZQBCnZ wzOrkbzlJMNrMKJpEgulmxAHmYJKgvZHXZXtLJSejFjR0GdHJcL5rwVOMWB8cg== Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:10:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <10410603.iXVFKWJQZn@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/4] doc: changes to abi policy introducing major abi versions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Thomas, QQ - So is there really a 'no png' rule, because we have lots of them in the documentation? root@rkinsell-MOBL2:.../rkinsell/dpdk# find doc/ -name "*.png" | wc -l 61 root@rkinsell-MOBL2:.../rkinsell/dpdk# find doc/ -name "*.svg" | wc -l 116 I am looking at recreating the images as SVG, but if it comes down to it - would they be ok to go as PNGs? Thanks, Ray K On 24/10/2019 01:43, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 27/09/2019 18:54, Ray Kinsella: >> This policy change introduces major ABI versions, these are >> declared every year, typically aligned with the LTS release >> and are supported by subsequent releases in the following year. > > No, the ABI number may stand for more than one year. > >> This change is intended to improve ABI stabilty for those projects >> consuming DPDK. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella >> --- >> doc/guides/contributing/abi_policy.rst | 321 +++++++++++++++------ >> .../contributing/img/abi_stability_policy.png | Bin 0 -> 61277 bytes >> doc/guides/contributing/img/what_is_an_abi.png | Bin 0 -> 151683 bytes > > As an Open Source project, binary files are rejected :) > Please provide the image source as SVG if the diagram is really required. > > [...] >> +#. Major ABI versions are declared every **year** and are then supported for one >> + year, typically aligned with the :ref:`LTS release `. > > As discussed on the cover letter, please avoid making "every year" cadence, the rule. > >> +#. The ABI version is managed at a project level in DPDK, with the ABI version >> + reflected in all :ref:`library's soname `. > > Should we make clear here that an experimental ABI change has no impact > on the ABI version number? > >> +#. The ABI should be preserved and not changed lightly. ABI changes must follow >> + the outlined :ref:`deprecation process `. >> +#. The addition of symbols is generally not problematic. The modification of >> + symbols is managed with :ref:`ABI Versioning `. >> +#. The removal of symbols is considered an :ref:`ABI breakage `, >> + once approved these will form part of the next ABI version. >> +#. Libraries or APIs marked as :ref:`Experimental ` are not >> + considered part of an ABI version and may change without constraint. >> +#. Updates to the :ref:`minimum hardware requirements `, which drop >> + support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an >> + ABI change. >> + >> +.. note:: >> + >> + In 2019, the DPDK community stated it's intention to move to ABI stable >> + releases, over a number of release cycles. Beginning with maintaining ABI >> + stability through one year of DPDK releases starting from DPDK 19.11. > > There is no verb in this sentence. > >> + This >> + policy will be reviewed in 2020, with intention of lengthening the stability >> + period. > >> +What is an ABI version? >> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> + >> +An ABI version is an instance of a library's ABI at a specific release. Certain >> +releases are considered by the community to be milestone releases, the yearly >> +LTS for example. Supporting those milestone release's ABI for some number of >> +subsequent releases is desirable to facilitate application upgrade. Those ABI >> +version's aligned with milestones release are therefore called 'ABI major >> +versions' and are supported for some number of releases. > > If you understand this paragraph, please raise your hand :) > >> +More details on major ABI version can be found in the :ref:`ABI versioning >> +` guide. >> >> The DPDK ABI policy >> -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> +------------------- >> + >> +A major ABI version is declared every year, aligned with that year's LTS >> +release, e.g. v19.11. This ABI version is then supported for one year by all >> +subsequent releases within that time period, until the next LTS release, e.g. >> +v20.11. > > Again, the "one year" limit should not be documented as a general rule. > >> +At the declaration of a major ABI version, major version numbers encoded in >> +libraries soname's are bumped to indicate the new version, with the minor >> +version reset to ``0``. An example would be ``librte_eal.so.20.3`` would become >> +``librte_eal.so.21.0``. >> >> +The ABI may then change multiple times, without warning, between the last major >> +ABI version increment and the HEAD label of the git tree, with the condition >> +that ABI compatibility with the major ABI version is preserved and therefore >> +soname's do not change. >> >> +Minor versions are incremented to indicate the release of a new ABI compatible >> +DPDK release, typically the DPDK quarterly releases. An example of this, might >> +be that ``librte_eal.so.20.1`` would indicate the first ABI compatible DPDK >> +release, following the declaration of the new major ABI version ``20``. > > I don't understand the benefit of having a minor ABI version number. > Can we just have v20 and v21 as we discussed in the techboard? > Is it because an application linked with v20.2 cannot work with v20.1? > > If we must have a minor number, I suggest a numbering closer to release numbers: > release 19.11 -> ABI 19.11 > release 20.02 -> ABI 19.14 > release 20.05 -> ABI 19.17 > release 20.08 -> ABI 19.20 > It shows the month number as if the first year never finishes. > And when a new ABI is declared, release and ABI versions are the same: > release 20.11 -> ABI 20.11 > > >> +ABI versions, are supported by each release until such time as the next major >> +ABI version is declared. At that time, the deprecation of the previous major ABI >> +version will be noted in the Release Notes with guidance on individual symbol >> +depreciation and upgrade notes provided. > > I suggest a rewording: > " > An ABI version is supported in all new releases > until the next major ABI version is declared. > When changing the major ABI version, > the release notes give details about all ABI changes. > " > > [...] >> + - The acknowledgment of a member of the technical board, as a delegate of the >> + `technical board `_ acknowledging the >> + need for the ABI change, is also mandatory. > > Only one? What about 3 members minimum? > > [...] >> +#. If a newly proposed API functionally replaces an existing one, when the new >> + API becomes non-experimental, then the old one is marked with >> + ``__rte_deprecated``. >> + >> + - The depreciated API should follow the notification process to be removed, >> + see :ref:`deprecation_notices`. >> + >> + - At the declaration of the next major ABI version, those ABI changes then >> + become a formal part of the new ABI and the requirement to preserve ABI >> + compatibility with the last major ABI version is then dropped. >> + >> + - The responsibility for removing redundant ABI compatibility code rests >> + with the original contributor of the ABI changes, failing that, then with >> + the contributor's company and then finally with the maintainer. > > Having too many responsibles look like nobody is really responsible. > I would tend to think that only the maintainer is responsible, > but he can ask for help. > >