On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Marc Sune wrote: > I keep not understanding the ABI policy, and particularly why ABI changes > have to be announced once cycle before _if_ there is already at least one > ABI change proposed. DPDK applications will have to recompile anyway. > > This aspect of the policy only slows down DPDK development and it pollutes > the repository with commits announcing ABI changes that are irrelevant > after 2 cycles, as (code) diffs show that already (not mentioning NEXT_ABI > complexity and extra LOCs). > > Maintaining LTS releases, and enforcing bug fixing in old LTS first, > upstreaming bugfixes is to me a much better approach to solve backwards > compatibility issues. > > But this is probably another discussion.
Yes, separate discussion. But I agree 100,000%. As a community member in my spare time I get tripped up by NEXT_ABI pollution just trying to submit trivial patches all the time, then I don't really have any good idea how to fix it, and I have to annoy Thomas with dumb questions across the time zones. I would really prefer to dump all the drama about ABIs and make a maintenance only LTS release which only gets bug fixes people specifically need and not random fixes or features. Matthew.
