On 12/07/2015 03:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-07 13:41, Panu Matilainen: >> On 12/07/2015 01:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 2015-12-07 08:29, Panu Matilainen: >>>> On 12/07/2015 01:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> 2015-12-02 15:53, Panu Matilainen: >>>> The vhost ABI break was announced for DPDK 2.2 in commit >>>> 3c848bd7b1c6f4f681b833322a748fdefbb5fb2d: >>> [...] >>>> So the ABI process was properly followed, except for actually bumping >>>> LIBABIVER. Bumping LIBABIVER is mentioned in >>>> doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst but it doesn't specify *when* >>>> this should be done, eg should the first patch breaking the ABI bump it >>>> or should it done be shortly before the next stable release, or >>>> something else. As it is, it seems a bit too easy to simply forget. >>> >>> I thought it was not needed to explicitly say that commits must be atomic >>> and we do not have to wait to do the required changes.
Heh, now that I look more carefully... it IS documented, line 38 of contributing/versioning.rst: > ABI versions are set at the time of major release labeling, and the > ABI may change multiple times, without warning, between the last > release label and the HEAD label of the git tree. >> The "problem" is that during a development cycle, an ABI could be broken >> several times but LIBABIVER should only be bumped once. So ABI breaking >> commits will often not be atomic wrt LIBABIVER, no matter which way its >> done. > > If the ABI version has already been changed, there should be a merge conflict. > I think it's better to manage a conflict than forget to update the version. What I'm thinking of is something that would tie LIBABIVER to the deprecation announcement in a way that could be easily checked (programmatically and manually). As it is now, its quite non-trivial to figure what LIBABIVER *should* be for a given library at a given point - you need to dig up deprecation.rst history and Makefile history and whatnot, and its all quite error-prone. >> For example libtool recommendation is that library versions are updated >> only just before public releases: >> https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html#Updating-version-info > > Interesting link. It makes me think that we do not manage ABI break when > downgrading the library (case of only new API keeping the ABI number). Hmm, not quite sure what you mean here, but full libtool-style versioning is not really needed with symbol versioning. - Panu - > >>> In this case, I've missed it when reviewing the vhost patches breaking the >>> ABI. >
