From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D73DA054A for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:23:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FE540042; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:23:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A420B40042 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:23:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1613730220; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BN7TZudFU5KWS5eKiaCsp5tM8QZ6tbLeXXSRoPyLLao=; b=fNa4yACqnk4GVJ3l88T/efWARcP735vQL8nZTlmieuivCyUwG8X0wDYy3iiRXkVNL7HLaz Tt0555diYFmjfDe+E4Geg1tV+CcJAKCUG6fMg260fk7AMOz049ZFD8eoQxAwiqxbRQ8jGB D39EVNFZKGS9Bl5zDTDA4QfpHSNaRWs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-466-gDW_a9OePbuMbf25Q6zvfw-1; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 05:23:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: gDW_a9OePbuMbf25Q6zvfw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054ED80196C; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rh.redhat.com (ovpn-112-169.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.169]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9097C5D6AD; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Traynor To: dev@openvswitch.org Cc: stable@dpdk.org, bluca@debian.org, christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, Kevin Traynor Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:23:13 +0000 Message-Id: <20210219102313.413368-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=ktraynor@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] doc: update stable section X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" Updating the docs to elaborate on the stable release characteristics and better document the current practice about new features in stable releases. Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor --- doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst index 20b081670..a5fba8d14 100644 --- a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst @@ -19,4 +19,8 @@ consumers of DPDK with a stable target on which to base applications or packages. +The primary characteristics of stable releases is that they attempt to +fix issues and not introduce any new regressions while keeping backwards +compatibility with the initial release of the stable version. + The Long Term Support release (LTS) is a designation applied to a Stable Release to indicate longer term support. @@ -94,12 +98,29 @@ commit message body as follows:: Fixes not suitable for backport should not include the ``Cc: stable@dpdk.org`` tag. -Features should not be backported to stable releases. It may be acceptable, in -limited cases, to back port features for the LTS release where: +To support the goal of stability and not introducing regressions, new code +being introduced is limited to bug fixes. New features should not be backported +to stable releases. -* There is a justifiable use case (for example a new PMD). -* The change is non-invasive. -* The work of preparing the backport is done by the proposer. -* There is support within the community. +In some limited cases, it may be acceptable to backport a new feature +to a stable release. Some of the factors which impact the decision by +stable maintainers are as follows: +* Does the feature break API/ABI? +* Does the feature break backwards compatibility? +* Is it for the latest LTS release (to avoid LTS upgrade issues)? +* Is there a commitment from the proposer or affiliation to validate the feature and check for regressions in related functionality? +* Is there a track record of the proposer or affiliation validating stable releases? +* Is it obvious that the feature will not impact existing functionality? +* How intrusive is the code change? +* What is the scope of the code change? +* Does it impact common components or vendor specific? +* Is there is a justifiable use case (a clear user need)? +* Is there a community consensus about the backport? + +Performance improvements are generally not considered to be fixes, but may be considered +in some cases where: + +* It is fixing a performance regression that occurred previously. +* An existing feature in LTS is not usable as intended without it. The Stable Mailing List -- 2.26.2