On 07/04/2019 10:48, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 04/04/2019 16:07, Burakov, Anatoly: >> On 04-Apr-19 1:52 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: >>> On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>>> On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote: [SNIP] >> So, if we are to cement our core API - we have to make a concrete effort >> to specify what goes and what stays, if we want it to be maintainable. >> The DPDK 1.0 specification, if you will :) > > "DPDK 1.0 specification", that's a great project name :-) >
Honestly - I would say that I am nervous of this. The definition of a DPDK 1.0 specification as a gate to API stability, feels like a "great plan tomorrow" instead of a "good plan" today. I think that getting people to dedicate time to such a specification might prove problematic and I could see this effort being very time consuming. It might never get completed. My preference would be to instead adopt a well-publicised community timeline for adopting more conservative API maintenance rules. Perhaps we could give ourselves as a community a time-limited window in which to address concerns around the API before they become hardened - perhaps say until DPDK 19.11 LTS, or something of the order of 6 months to 9 months. We then would know the timeline when niggles like exposure of internal structures and mbuf structure needed to be sorted by and could prioritize accordingly. Ray K
