Updating the docs to elaborate on the stable release characteristics and better document the current practice about new features in stable releases.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> --- v2: Send to right dev list this time. Fix typo. --- doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst index 20b081670..7a0a505aa 100644 --- a/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst @@ -19,4 +19,8 @@ consumers of DPDK with a stable target on which to base applications or packages. +The primary characteristics of stable releases is that they attempt to +fix issues and not introduce any new regressions while keeping backwards +compatibility with the initial release of the stable version. + The Long Term Support release (LTS) is a designation applied to a Stable Release to indicate longer term support. @@ -94,12 +98,29 @@ commit message body as follows:: Fixes not suitable for backport should not include the ``Cc: sta...@dpdk.org`` tag. -Features should not be backported to stable releases. It may be acceptable, in -limited cases, to back port features for the LTS release where: +To support the goal of stability and not introducing regressions, new code +being introduced is limited to bug fixes. New features should not be backported +to stable releases. -* There is a justifiable use case (for example a new PMD). -* The change is non-invasive. -* The work of preparing the backport is done by the proposer. -* There is support within the community. +In some limited cases, it may be acceptable to backport a new feature +to a stable release. Some of the factors which impact the decision by +stable maintainers are as follows: +* Does the feature break API/ABI? +* Does the feature break backwards compatibility? +* Is it for the latest LTS release (to avoid LTS upgrade issues)? +* Is there a commitment from the proposer or affiliation to validate the feature and check for regressions in related functionality? +* Is there a track record of the proposer or affiliation validating stable releases? +* Is it obvious that the feature will not impact existing functionality? +* How intrusive is the code change? +* What is the scope of the code change? +* Does it impact common components or vendor specific? +* Is there a justifiable use case (a clear user need)? +* Is there a community consensus about the backport? + +Performance improvements are generally not considered to be fixes, but may be considered +in some cases where: + +* It is fixing a performance regression that occurred previously. +* An existing feature in LTS is not usable as intended without it. The Stable Mailing List -- 2.26.2
