From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CA84C6E for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 03:18:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Xbbt2-000719-AS; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:01:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:01:35 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20141007210135.GH27719@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1410809031-19114-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20140918191401.GP20389@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20140924181940.GB4651@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1449997.vdXo3dW1jx@xps13> <20140926144549.GA5619@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20141001185940.GA27437@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141001185940.GA27437@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Add DSO symbol versioning to support backwards compatibility X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 01:18:28 -0000 On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:59:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:45:49AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:41:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > 2014-09-24 14:19, Neil Horman: > > > > Ping Thomas. I know you're busy, but I would like this to not fall off anyones > > > > radar. You alluded to concerns regarding what, for lack of a better term, > > > > ABI/API lockin. I had asked you to enuumerate/elaborate on specifics, but never > > > > heard back. Are there further specifics you wish to discuss, or are you > > > > satisfied with the above answers? > > > > > > Sorry for not being very reactive on this thread. > > > All this discussion is very interesting but it's really not the proper > > > time to apply it. As you said, it requires an extra effort. I'm not saying > > > it will never be integrated. I'm just saying that we cannot change > > > everything at the same time. > > > > > > Let me sum up the situation. This community project has been very active > > > for few months now. First, we learnt how to make some releases together > > > and we are improving the process to be able to deliver a new major release > > > every 4 months while having some good quality process. > > > But these releases are still not complete because documentation is not > > > integrated yet. Then developers should have a role in documentation updates. > > > We also need to integrate and learn how to use more tools to be more > > > efficient and improve quality. > > > > > > So the question is "when should we care about API compatibility"? > > > And the answer is: ASAP, but not now. I feel next year is a better target. > > > Because the most important priority is to move together at a pace which > > > allow most of us to stay in the race. > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Thomas, I don't accept this. I asked you for details as to your > > concerns regarding this patch series, and you've provided more vague comments. > > I need details to address > > > > You say it requires extra effort, you're right it does. Any feature that you > > integreate requires some additional effort. How is this patch any different > > from adding the acl library or any other new API? Everything requires > > maintenence, thats how software works. What specfically about this patch series > > makes the effort insurmountable to you? > > > > You say you're improving your process. Great, this patch aids in that process > > by ensuring backwards compatibility for a period of time. Given that the API > > and ABI can still evolve within this framework, as I've described, how is this > > patch series not a significant step forward toward your goal of quality process. > > > > You say documentation isn't integrated. So, what does getting documentation > > integrated have to do with this patch set, or any other? I don't see you > > holding any other patches based on documentation. Again, nothing in this series > > prevents evolution of the API or ABI. If you're hope is to wait until > > everything is perfect, then apply some control to the public facing API, and get > > it all documented, none of thosse things will ever happen, I promise you. > > > > You say you also need to learn to use more tools to be more efficient and > > improve quality. Great! Thats exactly what this is. If we mandate even a short > > term commitment to ABI stability (1 single relese worth of time), we will > > quickly identify what API's change quickly and where we need to be cautious with > > our API design. If you just assume that developers will get better of their own > > volition, it will never happen. > > > > You say this should go in next year, but not now. When exactly? What event do > > you forsee occuring in the next 12-18 months that will change everything such > > that we can start supporing an ABI for more than just a few weeks at the head of > > the tree? > > > > To this end, I just did a quick search through the git history for dpdk to look > > at the histories of all the header files that are exposed via the makefile > > SYMLINK command (given that that provides a list of header files that > > applications can include, and embodies all the function symbols and data types > > applications have access to. > > > > There are 179 total commits in that list > > Of those, a bit of spot checking suggests that about 10-15% of them actually > > change ABI, and many of those came from Bruce's rework of the mbuf structure. > > That about 17-20 instances over the last 2 years where an ABI update would have > > been needed. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Where exactly is your concern > > here? > > > > Neil > > > > Ping Thomas, I'd like to continue this debate to a conclusion. Could you please > provide specific details and/or concerns that you have with this patch series? > > Thanks > Neil > Ping again Thomas, please lets debate this to a reasonable consensus. Ignoring it won't help anything. Regards Neil