From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FC1A0547; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:12:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955BD411A7; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:12:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-108-mta70.mxroute.com (mail-108-mta70.mxroute.com [136.175.108.70]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3270D40E3C for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:12:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from filter004.mxroute.com ([149.28.56.236] filter004.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta70.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 17b0c5bed5b00074ba.001 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:12:36 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 6a96fcacdc2ff52de1c9c661a9778aac488a2be8228b X-Originating-IP: [149.28.56.236] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ashroe.eu; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2M5tla39EY05t9KhwaBSaonFBcX7FE5Jy28lzxjRnYw=; b=SOE0CvXVwm+ZuGRJs7YhaGofZV UYHUGSRbWcAs3lwhx+WZBiTvElCRT4eM9n8LnSz2biGneOCSUiSzy0xkMpzUiizoBEZYL0pLlfEoo pyL4AsrTterSZvzPRuvZbt1rQU45mxTozVTjuozwmUCkC+aOaQ/DeY1SDWvK269QIYfmg3CSYL24A hn8GaHKzllKKDgi+7JZG+rhUEw29koF4BdAF4zehcp4/fbJGNJJeKS6qyxjMlghilbmBXEfjeLaZb GaqOJRPRsOpE/GkQyqXoYdGU7Wr7FHPqcnOpI9kzoNmm5aDE1Hi4e2pfiidi6bKzNaGnCW2BAwREL wF8uwwCw==; To: Jerin Jacob , Tyler Retzlaff Cc: dpdk-dev , "Richardson, Bruce" , John McNamara , Ferruh Yigit , Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand , Stephen Hemminger References: <20210629160031.74681-1-mdr@ashroe.eu> <20210701103842.161275-1-mdr@ashroe.eu> <20210709191559.GA2540@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> From: "Kinsella, Ray" Message-ID: <02e932e9-d43e-ee9f-fd37-d88d9583d9f0@ashroe.eu> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:12:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu X-Zone-Spam-Resolution: no action X-Zone-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1, required=15, tests=[ARC_NA=0, TO_DN_ALL=0, RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN=0, FROM_HAS_DN=0, FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT=0, FREEMAIL_TO=0, MIME_GOOD=-0.1, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM=0, MIME_TRACE=0, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO=0, NEURAL_SPAM=0, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM=0] Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: policy on the promotion of experimental APIs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" On 11/07/2021 08:22, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 12:46 AM Tyler Retzlaff > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:46:54AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>> + >>>> +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. >> >> i think the intent here is to indicate that an api/abi doesn't just >> automatically become stable after a period of time. there also has to >> be an evaluation by the maintainer / community before making it stable. >> >> so i guess the timer is something that should force that evaluation. as >> a part of that evaluation one would imagine there is justification for >> keeping the api as experimental for longer and if so a rationale as to >> why. > > I think, we need to have a deadline. Probably one year timer for evaluation and > two year for max time for decision to make it as stable or remove. > Tyler is correct here (sorry for the delay I was out on vacation). In my usage of the word exception - I was conveying that an API aging or timing out should be an exceptional event. What I am hoping will happen in the 90%-ile of cases is conveyed in the previous line. "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." i.e. that the symbol has be pro-actively managed with the maintainer and original author deciding when to promote. I will add a line to indicate that experimental apis should be reviewed after one year.