From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.228.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8310B5A45 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:17:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EE82BD7; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:17:10 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: "Mcnamara, John" Cc: dev , Christian Ehrhardt , Markos Chandras , Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <20160603181710.GA13454@mhcomputing.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC: DPDK Long Term Support 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: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 18:17:11 -0000 On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:07:49PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > What changes should be backported > --------------------------------- > > * Bug fixes that don't break the ABI. > > > What changes should not be backported > ------------------------------------- > > * API or ABI breaking changes. I think this part needs some adjusting. It seems like there should be allowance for bug fixes where the original does break ABI but it is possible to make a version that doesn't. A lot of DPDK bug fixes I see would fall into this category and it isn't discussed. Matthew.