From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0241DA00E6 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:45:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE981B5A2; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:45:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97241B59B for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70C4307C94A; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:45:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.117.231] (ovpn-117-231.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.231]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677905C6B6; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:45:19 +0000 (UTC) To: Luca Boccassi , "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: Yongseok Koh , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , John McNamara , Aaron Conole , "Walker, Benjamin" , Jay Rolette References: <0989b56a-f480-416c-e0a7-3e562c9b990b@redhat.com> <834f085314caae4091cfc02c5c904a6efaed3141.camel@debian.org> From: Kevin Traynor Message-ID: <0b184a08-a88c-8dda-9f35-123afc65c488@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:45:18 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <834f085314caae4091cfc02c5c904a6efaed3141.camel@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:45:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK short term stable maintenance 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" Message-ID: <20190322104518.g_YhIf8_9VuQOfN7oFcl-xFMnanNTWNQbgUSKDTmYf0@z> On 12/03/2019 20:46, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 19:12 +0000, Kevin Traynor wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> This is about short term stable maintenance, ~3 months based on >> n.02/05/08 DPDK. It is **not** referring/impacting DPDK LTS, >> maintained >> for ~2 years based on n.11 DPDK. >> >> The effort and usefulness of short term stable maintenance was raised >> previously and in the last DPDK Release meeting [1], so sending mail >> to >> kick off discussion here... >> >> Currently DPDK 19.02 stable branch has no maintainer and it has been >> difficult to get the companies to validate DPDK 18.08.1 RC. There >> seems >> to be a lack of appetite in the community for short term stables, or >> at >> least for all of them, and hence giving resources for helping them. >> >> It could be that users are either moving from latest bleeding edge >> master release to the next, or settling on DPDK LTS for an extended >> period of time - I'm just speculating, but IMHO that would not be a >> bad >> thing. >> >> So what to do with short term stables? Some choices could be: >> >> - continue with short term stables for n.02/05/08 >> - ad-hoc support for short term stables where community have an >> interest >> in a particular one >> - have a maintainer to backport fixes on a public branch, but have no >> releases, or have unvalidated/best effort validated releases >> - no short term stable branches/releases >> >> Probably there's other ideas too. Obviously most of the above would >> need >> resources from the community to proceed. One advantage of not having >> short term stables is that there might be more resources available >> for >> maintenance/validation of master and LTS DPDK releases. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> thanks, >> Kevin. >> >> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-March/126006.html > > Hi, > > Thanks for starting the discussion. > > My 2c is that, unless someone steps up not only for the maintainer role > but also for the validation effort, we should cancel the short term > releases. > +1 In fact the docs do not make any commitment that there will be stables (other than the LTSs), but in practice it has been the case that every recent DPDK release has had a stable branch and stable release. I will add a note in the docs that validation commitments are also needed for a stable to proceed.