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 84EABA0525; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:57:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D551BFAC; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:57:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC791BFA5 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:57:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11A2591; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:57:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=lPzroXjYPiemNINqX3xgvyRtAgB5EGkhPZ+OhVrgjro=; b=Q1y6E7lIwGrp 0Rdixiyh7h6NtZAnaVae05QMmM019q+Qc9MWY5Y+Afs5ic0RI7sAxIJn4/rE5BYZ NiB3kMVS1PrIqmSGhphq/qU4u9CPJaZAct0BrCx+t+GcqZUt4VPIXkOvwC0FdZMK hgX9p+rkJd2AkCt5Fog2vVkXzxvzQCc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=lPzroXjYPiemNINqX3xgvyRtAgB5EGkhPZ+OhVrgj ro=; b=YMJ5CHa/rFCESh0up7Dvk5ERfdQ2y3vHC9j1YlyiumKU1Pi46xwfunJKg DmeZmkdIGQVDblFfnxDaSH0DQpJEzgVTNIEKmDAxSYo80K1nOtAQyi9xe1UHqb3s PBMHaKuUsnueVaRTiH1jMOboQKIDwaF+uTGR4e/NqxCWyPKsGPeOH1sheyOtZIHI E9isRckOAMb6vQZRuhzVwFkyczw9IBdNAacNNYbPVFVM6gBkf8RqKuTne0SypqlV kGvKPs1PEf3GG4ObtCljhpmsXDIgKdoTjOBIa0H5oc0Fka0tuFIkV2yiJDN9TNBX zluEChqhVcqJyjZ/qJWuX8N702FRQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrkeeggdelhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertd dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehm ohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepje ejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9CCBA328005A; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:57:08 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Ray Kinsella Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:57:07 +0100 Message-ID: <14003768.tv2OnDr8pf@xps> In-Reply-To: <6de88cc1-4766-b59a-e138-0b3978f58d5d@ashroe.eu> References: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> <5254976.hdfAi7Kttb@xps> <6de88cc1-4766-b59a-e138-0b3978f58d5d@ashroe.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries 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" 19/02/2020 14:50, Ray Kinsella: > On 19/02/2020 12:43, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 19/02/2020 12:43, Neil Horman: > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:50:09AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 18/02/2020 10:42, Bruce Richardson: > >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:15:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to remind everybody our mistake when defining ABI versions. > >>>>> It has been "fixed" in this commit: > >>>>> http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f26c2b39 > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let's think about the consequence for the experimental libraries. > >>>>> > >>>>> In DPDK 19.11, we use the ABI version 0.200 with soname 0.20 In DPDK > >>>>> 20.02, we use the ABI version 0.2001 with soname 0.201 Numbers are > >>>>> increasing, that's fine. When we'll switch to the new major ABI and use > >>>>> a normal numbering: In DPDK 20.11, we will use the ABI version 0.210 with > >>>>> soname 0.21 Numbers are dropping. > >>>>> > >>>>> In short, for experimental libs, ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we OK with this or do we prefer reverting to normal numbering for > >>>>> experimental libraries in DPDK 20.02? > >>>>> > >>>> Personally, I would not be too concerned about the verions of experimental > >>>> libs, so long as they don't conflict across versions and have some > >>>> similarity to the major ABI version for the release. > >>> > >>> You think sorting of the version numbers is not important? > >>> If we don't care comparing experimental version numbers, > >>> then OK, let's drop this patch. But please we need a small vote. > >>> > >>> Note: there would be no problem if we did not vote for having > >>> a special numbering for pure experimental libraries (I am still against). > >>> > >> I don't understand. Why would we change the ABI_VERSION at all in an LTS release at > >> all? This operation is meant to take an an experimental API and mark it as > >> stable by promoting its version number to the next major releases number. As > >> such, in the LTS release, we should keep the soname the same, as there should be > >> no other ABI changes in the promoted API. > > > > The library version number is updated because we add new symbols. > > > > > > So while experimental library version numbers are not "important". > I do agree with Thomas they should be sane, increase and should have a consistent format. > > Should we always just pad them to 4 places as the simple solution? > i.e. > > DPDK 19.11 ... 0.20 (needs to remain 0.20). > DPDK 20.02 ... 0.2001 > DPDK 20.11 ... 0.2100 > DPDK 21.02 ... 0.2101 A patch from Ferruh got merged. It is adding a dot to keep versioning consistent. Marking this patch as rejected.