On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:54:47 +0100 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> My thoughts on the matter are: > 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data > structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should reduce > the scope for ABI breaks. > 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in the > rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I want us > to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up by all > linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. I would also like to propose "you get one ABI break" which means each API/ABI change must hide more infrastructure than the last. This is the "fool me once, ..." saying in API's. For example, the memory rework it would have been good if the structure of mempools etc were hidden inside EAL and not exposed. but as usual hindsight is 20/20
