From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1D04CA0 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:10:29 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jan 2019 10:10:29 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,517,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="121036637" Received: from silpixa00399752.ir.intel.com (HELO silpixa00399752.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.237.222.212]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2019 10:10:27 -0800 From: Ferruh Yigit To: dev@dpdk.org, John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic Cc: Luca Boccassi , Kevin Traynor , Yongseok Koh , Neil Horman Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:10:18 +0000 Message-Id: <20190124181019.17168-2-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.2 In-Reply-To: <20190124181019.17168-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> References: <20190122162310.53613-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20190124181019.17168-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] doc: make RTE_NEXT_ABI optional 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:10:30 -0000 Initial process requires oncoming changes described in deprecation notice should be implemented in a RTE_NEXT_ABI gated way. This has been discussed in technical board, and since this can cause a multiple #ifdef blocks in multiple locations of the code, can be confusing specially for the modifications that requires data structure changes. Anyway this was not happening in practice. Making RTE_NEXT_ABI usage more optional based on techboard decision: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/123519.html The intention with using RTE_NEXT_ABI was to provide more information to the user about planned changes, and force developer to think more in coding level. Since RTE_NEXT_ABI become optional, now the preferred way to do this is, if possible, sending changes, described in deprecation notice, as a separate patch and reference it in deprecation notice. Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit Acked-by: Neil Horman --- Cc: Luca Boccassi Cc: Kevin Traynor Cc: Yongseok Koh Cc: Neil Horman --- doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst | 15 ++++++--------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst index 19af56cd2..bfc27fbe0 100644 --- a/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst @@ -73,19 +73,16 @@ being provided. The requirements for doing so are: interest" be sought for each deprecation, for example: from NIC vendors, CPU vendors, end-users, etc. -#. The changes (including an alternative map file) must be gated with - the ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` option, and provided with a deprecation notice at the - same time. - It will become the default ABI in the next release. +#. The changes (including an alternative map file) can be included with + deprecation notice, in wrapped way by the ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` option, + to provide more details about oncoming changes. + ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` wrapper will be removed when it become the default ABI. + More preferred way to provide this information is sending the feature + as a separate patch and reference it in deprecation notice. #. A full deprecation cycle, as explained above, must be made to offer downstream consumers sufficient warning of the change. -#. At the beginning of the next release cycle, every ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` - conditions will be removed, the ``LIBABIVER`` variable in the makefile(s) - where the ABI is changed will be incremented, and the map files will - be updated. - Note that the above process for ABI deprecation should not be undertaken lightly. ABI stability is extremely important for downstream consumers of the DPDK, especially when distributed in shared object form. Every effort should -- 2.17.2