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 1E092A0613 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:40:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408CF1BF19; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:40:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5884B1BF19; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:40:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Sep 2019 07:40:36 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,548,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="193785331" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.95]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Sep 2019 07:40:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:40:31 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ray Kinsella Cc: Kevin Traynor , dpdk-dev , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Brian , "techboard@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20190925144031.GA888@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <126e7de8-d2cd-d9f0-4fe8-d0d05963589f@ashroe.eu> <69a1da67-da6b-f004-7b84-279c55083e2e@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] [RFC] Proposals and notes from ABI stability panel @ DPDK Userspace 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" On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > In the short term, based on the feedback at the conference and to give > > something concrete to be considered, here is a suggestion, > > > > ABI freeze starts at 20.02 for 9 months, with a review as planned to see > > if 20.11 should be frozen 2 years. > > > > pros: > > + Eliminates any need for delaying 19.11 release > > > > + Allows maintainers to stick to current deprecation policy if they need > > to make changes prior to freeze (Based on comment from Hemmant) > > > > + Not sure if it's worthy of a new bullet or clear from above but I > > would add that changing the release cycle/deprecation policy etc 2 weeks > > (I think) before RC1 is late to say the least and there is no notice to > > users > > > > + Means that any changes required prior to freeze are not rushed with > > usual big LTS release (19.11). Gives more time and maybe during a saner > > release cycle (20.02) > > > > cons: > > - With view for possible 20.11 freeze, gives 2 releases to tease out > > process instead of 3 > > > > - Perhaps it is desirable for some users to have the 19.11 LTS ABI > > compatible with 20.02/05/08 releases > > > > I've tried to keep them objective, of course people will have different > > opinions about starting a freeze now vs. later etc. too. > > > > thanks, > > Kevin. > > > > *interesting* > > Another approach, possibly better approach, is to see the LTS as the > final act following an ABI declaration/freeze. > > We we declare the v20 ABI in DPDK 20.02, and hold that ABI until 21.02 > including the v20.11 LTS. The LTS then becomes the cumulation of the ABI > freeze. > > I didn't go this road, because of the community habit of pushing things > in just before the LTS, I thought it would be a bridge too far, and that > it would get considerable push back. I actually think this approach was initially rejected as having an ABI break immediately after an LTS makes backporting fixes to the LTS more problematic. /Bruce