DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>,
	Brian <brian.aherne@intel.com>,
	"techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] [RFC] Proposals and notes from ABI stability panel @ DPDK Userspace
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:49:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <307773f1-6320-b984-b0fb-4cea57c83f1e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190925144031.GA888@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>

On 25/09/2019 15:40, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yeah, it likely would. I guess the freeze cycle or end date of the
freeze trial (if i can call it that) could be discussed further later,
but the start date is the more immediate issue now.

> /Bruce
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-25 14:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-23 17:51 [dpdk-dev] " Ray Kinsella
2019-09-25 13:31 ` Kevin Traynor
2019-09-25 14:29   ` Ray Kinsella
2019-09-25 14:40     ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2019-09-25 14:49       ` Kevin Traynor [this message]
2019-09-25 15:06       ` Ray Kinsella

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=307773f1-6320-b984-b0fb-4cea57c83f1e@redhat.com \
    --to=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=brian.aherne@intel.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).