07/07/2020 19:01, Kinsella, Ray: > On 07/07/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 07/07/2020 18:37, Kinsella, Ray: > >> On 07/07/2020 17:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 07/07/2020 18:35, Kinsella, Ray: > >>>> On 07/07/2020 16:26, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> 07/07/2020 16:45, Ray Kinsella: > >>>>>> Clarify retention period for aliases to experimental. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst > >>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst > >>>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ The macros exported are: > >>>>>> * ``VERSION_SYMBOL_EXPERIMENTAL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version > >>>>>> table entry > >>>>>> binding versioned symbol ``b@EXPERIMENTAL`` to the internal > >>>>>> function ``be``. > >>>>>> The macro is used when a symbol matures to become part of the > >>>>>> stable ABI, to > >>>>>> - provide an alias to experimental for some time. > >>>>>> + provide an alias to experimental until the next major ABI version. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why limiting the period for experimental status? > >>>>> Some API want to remain experimental longer. > >>>>> > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>> +alias will then typically be dropped in the next major ABI version. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't see the need for the time estimation. > >>>> > >>>> Will reword to ... > >>>> > >>>> "This alias will then be dropped in the next major ABI version." > >>> > >>> It is not addressing my first comment. Please see above. > >> > >> Thank you, I don't necessarily agree with the first comment :-) > > > > You don't have to agree. But in this case we must discuss :-) > > > >> We need to say when the alias should be dropped no? > > > > I don't think so. > > Until now, it is let to the appreciation of the maintainer. > > If we want to change the rule, especially for experimental period, > > it must be said clearly and debated. > > It doesn't make _any_ sense to maintain an alias after the new ABI. > > The alias is there to maintain ABI compatibility, > there is no reason to maintain compatibility in the new ABI - so it should be > dropped
Yes I was wrong, sorry.
