Hi Neil, 2014-10-07 17:01, Neil Horman: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:59:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:45:49AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:41:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > > > 2014-09-24 14:19, Neil Horman: > > > > > Ping Thomas. I know you're busy, but I would like this to not fall > > > > > off anyones > > > > > radar. You alluded to concerns regarding what, for lack of a better > > > > > term, > > > > > ABI/API lockin. I had asked you to enuumerate/elaborate on > > > > > specifics, but never > > > > > heard back. Are there further specifics you wish to discuss, or are > > > > > you > > > > > satisfied with the above answers? > > > > > > > > Sorry for not being very reactive on this thread. > > > > All this discussion is very interesting but it's really not the proper > > > > time to apply it. As you said, it requires an extra effort. I'm not > > > > saying > > > > it will never be integrated. I'm just saying that we cannot change > > > > everything at the same time. > > > > > > > > Let me sum up the situation. This community project has been very active > > > > for few months now. First, we learnt how to make some releases together > > > > and we are improving the process to be able to deliver a new major > > > > release > > > > every 4 months while having some good quality process. > > > > But these releases are still not complete because documentation is not > > > > integrated yet. Then developers should have a role in documentation > > > > updates. > > > > We also need to integrate and learn how to use more tools to be more > > > > efficient and improve quality. > > > > > > > > So the question is "when should we care about API compatibility"? > > > > And the answer is: ASAP, but not now. I feel next year is a better > > > > target. > > > > Because the most important priority is to move together at a pace which > > > > allow most of us to stay in the race. > > > > > > I'm sorry Thomas, I don't accept this. I asked you for details as to your > > > concerns regarding this patch series, and you've provided more vague > > > comments. > > > I need details to address > > > > > > You say it requires extra effort, you're right it does. Any feature that > > > you > > > integreate requires some additional effort. How is this patch any > > > different > > > from adding the acl library or any other new API? Everything requires > > > maintenence, thats how software works. What specfically about this patch > > > series > > > makes the effort insurmountable to you? > > > > > > You say you're improving your process. Great, this patch aids in that > > > process > > > by ensuring backwards compatibility for a period of time. Given that the > > > API > > > and ABI can still evolve within this framework, as I've described, how is > > > this > > > patch series not a significant step forward toward your goal of quality > > > process. > > > > > > You say documentation isn't integrated. So, what does getting > > > documentation > > > integrated have to do with this patch set, or any other? I don't see you > > > holding any other patches based on documentation. Again, nothing in this > > > series > > > prevents evolution of the API or ABI. If you're hope is to wait until > > > everything is perfect, then apply some control to the public facing API, > > > and get > > > it all documented, none of thosse things will ever happen, I promise you. > > > > > > You say you also need to learn to use more tools to be more efficient and > > > improve quality. Great! Thats exactly what this is. If we mandate even > > > a short > > > term commitment to ABI stability (1 single relese worth of time), we will > > > quickly identify what API's change quickly and where we need to be > > > cautious with > > > our API design. If you just assume that developers will get better of > > > their own > > > volition, it will never happen. > > > > > > You say this should go in next year, but not now. When exactly? What > > > event do > > > you forsee occuring in the next 12-18 months that will change everything > > > such > > > that we can start supporing an ABI for more than just a few weeks at the > > > head of > > > the tree? > > > > > > To this end, I just did a quick search through the git history for dpdk > > > to look > > > at the histories of all the header files that are exposed via the makefile > > > SYMLINK command (given that that provides a list of header files that > > > applications can include, and embodies all the function symbols and data > > > types > > > applications have access to. > > > > > > There are 179 total commits in that list > > > Of those, a bit of spot checking suggests that about 10-15% of them > > > actually > > > change ABI, and many of those came from Bruce's rework of the mbuf > > > structure. > > > That about 17-20 instances over the last 2 years where an ABI update > > > would have > > > been needed. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Where exactly is your > > > concern > > > here? > > > > Ping Thomas, I'd like to continue this debate to a conclusion. Could you > > please > > provide specific details and/or concerns that you have with this patch > > series? > > > Ping again Thomas, please lets debate this to a reasonable consensus. > Ignoring > it won't help anything.
I'm not ignoring the discussion, I was trying to focus on other topics. You're right, we need a conclusion. This patch is an important change which needs time to be finely checked and tested. So I plan to integrate it in version 2.0 which will be the next one after 1.8 release. In the mean time you could test this patch with Fedora and see how it helps application packaging. Then we could be more confident that we are applying the right policy starting with 2.0. Thanks Neil, I appreciate your involvement in DPDK -- Thomas
