On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > In the short term, based on the feedback at the conference and to give > > something concrete to be considered, here is a suggestion, > > > > ABI freeze starts at 20.02 for 9 months, with a review as planned to see > > if 20.11 should be frozen 2 years. > > > > pros: > > + Eliminates any need for delaying 19.11 release > > > > + Allows maintainers to stick to current deprecation policy if they need > > to make changes prior to freeze (Based on comment from Hemmant) > > > > + Not sure if it's worthy of a new bullet or clear from above but I > > would add that changing the release cycle/deprecation policy etc 2 weeks > > (I think) before RC1 is late to say the least and there is no notice to > > users > > > > + Means that any changes required prior to freeze are not rushed with > > usual big LTS release (19.11). Gives more time and maybe during a saner > > release cycle (20.02) > > > > cons: > > - With view for possible 20.11 freeze, gives 2 releases to tease out > > process instead of 3 > > > > - Perhaps it is desirable for some users to have the 19.11 LTS ABI > > compatible with 20.02/05/08 releases > > > > I've tried to keep them objective, of course people will have different > > opinions about starting a freeze now vs. later etc. too. > > > > thanks, > > Kevin. > > > > *interesting* > > Another approach, possibly better approach, is to see the LTS as the > final act following an ABI declaration/freeze. > > We we declare the v20 ABI in DPDK 20.02, and hold that ABI until 21.02 > including the v20.11 LTS. The LTS then becomes the cumulation of the ABI > freeze. > > I didn't go this road, because of the community habit of pushing things > in just before the LTS, I thought it would be a bridge too far, and that > it would get considerable push back.
I actually think this approach was initially rejected as having an ABI break immediately after an LTS makes backporting fixes to the LTS more problematic. /Bruce
