QQ. What do you plan to do then, when you go for longer periods of ABI stability?
Ray K > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > Sent: Monday 2 December 2019 15:40 > To: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Neil > Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinse...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] version: 20.02-rc0 > > 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.
