> -----Original Message----- > From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai at redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:30 PM > To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Stable Releases and Long Term Support > > ... > > > ABI > > --- > > > > The Stable Release should not be seen as a way of breaking or > > circumventing the DPDK ABI policy. > > I find this a strange thing to say about a stable/LTS release ABI. I had > read the originating thread before seeing this, but it still made me go > "Huh?" for several seconds. The problem perhaps being, the rest of the > document addresses stable/LTS releases, but this statement speaks about > normal development work going on elsewhere. > > The earlier version had a mention about ABI/API breakage related to things > what not to backport but that's entirely gone here. Given how important > ABI + API stability is for stable/LTS releases, I think it deserves a > special mention here. Maybe something more to the tune of: > > --- > ABI or API breakages are not permitted in stable releases, special care > must be taken to when backporting. > > The existence of stable release(s) does not lessen the need to comply to > DPDK ABI policy in development work. > ---
That seems reasonable. If I do an update to the doc or add it to the guides I'll update it with this. > > With the exception of the ABI/API thing, this looks like a fair starting > point to me. Time and experience will tell more. > I also think that we will have to see how it goes. What is important is that we end up with something that is useful to the community and consumers. John. --
