On 25/09/2019 15:40, Bruce Richardson wrote: > 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. >
Yeah, it likely would. I guess the freeze cycle or end date of the freeze trial (if i can call it that) could be discussed further later, but the start date is the more immediate issue now. > /Bruce >
