+1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Monday 2 December 2019 16:13
> To: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinse...@intel.com>
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; David Marchand
> <david.march...@redhat.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Neil Horman
> <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] version: 20.02-rc0
>
> 02/12/2019 16:43, Kinsella, Ray:
> > QQ.
> >
> > What do you plan to do then, when you go for longer periods of ABI
> stability?
>
> Very good point Ray!
> For longer periods it would not mach DPDK version number.
>
> So we keep standard scheme of increasing by +1 every quarter?
>
>
>
> > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:29:06PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:57 PM Thomas Monjalon
> > > > <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Start a new release cycle with empty release notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > I would prefer increasing the ABI version to 20.2 for an easy
> > > > > mapping with code version:
> > > > > DPDK 19.11 = ABI 20
> > > > > libs 19.11 = .so.20.0
> > > > > DPDK 20.02 = ABI 20
> > > > > libs 20.02 = .so.20.2
> > > > > DPDK 20.05 = ABI 20
> > > > > libs 20.05 = .so.20.5
> > > > > DPDK 20.08 = ABI 20
> > > > > libs 20.08 = .so.20.8
> > > > >
> > > > > Opinions?
> > > >
> > > > +1 but no strong opinion.
> > > >
> > > I like that idea too, though again no strong opinion either way.
> >
>
>
>
>
