Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>]

On 21/02/2020 16:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 19/02/2020 14:50, Ray Kinsella:
>> On 19/02/2020 12:43, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 19/02/2020 12:43, Neil Horman:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:50:09AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 18/02/2020 10:42, Bruce Richardson:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:15:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to remind everybody our mistake when defining ABI versions.
>>>>>>> It has been "fixed" in this commit:
>>>>>>> http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f26c2b39
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let's think about the consequence for the experimental libraries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In DPDK 19.11, we use the ABI version 0.200 with soname 0.20 In DPDK
>>>>>>> 20.02, we use the ABI version 0.2001 with soname 0.201 Numbers are
>>>>>>> increasing, that's fine.  When we'll switch to the new major ABI and use
>>>>>>> a normal numbering: In DPDK 20.11, we will use the ABI version 0.210 with
>>>>>>> soname 0.21 Numbers are dropping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, for experimental libs, ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we OK with this or do we prefer reverting to normal numbering for
>>>>>>> experimental libraries in DPDK 20.02?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I would not be too concerned about the verions of experimental
>>>>>> libs, so long as they don't conflict across versions and have some
>>>>>> similarity to the major ABI version for the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think sorting of the version numbers is not important?
>>>>> If we don't care comparing experimental version numbers,
>>>>> then OK, let's drop this patch. But please we need a small vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: there would be no problem if we did not vote for having
>>>>> a special numbering for pure experimental libraries (I am still against).
>>>>>
>>>> I don't understand.  Why would we change the ABI_VERSION at all in an LTS release at
>>>> all?  This operation is meant to take an an experimental API and mark it as
>>>> stable by promoting its version number to the next major releases number.  As
>>>> such, in the LTS release, we should keep the soname the same, as there should be
>>>> no other ABI changes in the promoted API.
>>>
>>> The library version number is updated because we add new symbols.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So while experimental library version numbers are not "important".
>> I do agree with Thomas they should be sane, increase and should have a consistent format.
>>
>> Should we always just pad them to 4 places as the simple solution?
>> i.e.
>>
>> DPDK 19.11 ... 0.20 (needs to remain 0.20).
>> DPDK 20.02 ... 0.2001
>> DPDK 20.11 ... 0.2100
>> DPDK 21.02 ... 0.2101 
> 
> A patch from Ferruh got merged.
> It is adding a dot to keep versioning consistent.
> 
> Marking this patch as rejected.
> 

Ferruh's was a better solution.