From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CCE2BF8;
 Thu,  7 Apr 2016 11:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBC1CD47AD;
 Thu,  7 Apr 2016 09:33:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sopuli.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-7-204.ams2.redhat.com
 [10.36.7.204])
 by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
 u379XEpp026248; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:33:15 -0400
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <1610488.T03Kyi0Reo@xps13> <5911950.ZPQvAWoePl@xps13>
Cc: techboard@dpdk.org
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5706295A.3000406@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:33:14 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5911950.ZPQvAWoePl@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16
 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:33:16 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK namespace
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:33:16 -0000

On 04/07/2016 12:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Thank you everyone for the feedbacks.
>
> 2016-04-05 15:56, Thomas Monjalon:
>> The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is
>> to fix the DPDK namespace.
>
> Everybody agree every symbols must be prefixed. Checking and fixing the
> namespace consistency will be in the roadmap.
>
> It seems most of you agree renaming would be a nice improvement but not
> so important.
> The main drawback is the induced backporting pain, even if we have
> some scripts to convert the patches to the old namespace.
> Note: the backports can be in DPDK itself or in the applications.
>
>> If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to
>> introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_"
>> during some time.
>> We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto)
>> or when there is a significant API break (example: mempool).
>
> The slow change has been clearly rejected in favor of a complete change
> in one patch.
> The timing was also discussed as it could impact the pending patches.
> So it would be done at the end or the beginning of a release.
> Marc suggests to do it for 16.04 as the numbering scheme has changed.

Just noting that it cannot be done in 16.04 because the ABI policy 
requires a deprecation cycle of at least one major release for every 
breakage. And we're discussing a total 100% breakage of everything here, 
even if its just a simple rename.

	- Panu -

> There is no strong conclusion at this point because we need to decide
> wether the renaming deserves to be done or never.
> I suggest to take the inputs from the technical board.
>
> Do not hesitate to comment. Thanks
>