>Hi, > >On 02/12/2016 04:38 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> OK, I'm going to sum it up with new words and let the conclusion comes >> from Keith, Panu and Olivier. >> >> We agreed to allow ABI breaking if a notification was done in the >> previous release. >> Keith has sent a notification for 16.04 so the "official" ABI will be >> changed in 16.07. >> It is also encouraged to show how the ABI will be broken when sending >> a notification. It allows to give an informed opinion before ack'ing. >> The code snippet will also be useful to app developpers when preparing >> a future upgrade. >> Keith has sent the whole code change. >> This code change may be submitted in the current release without waiting >> the deprecation time if gated in the NEXT_ABI ifdefs. >> It allows to provide the feature to app developpers who don't care about >> versioning. But the price is a more complicated code to read and manage. >> >> To make it short, the rules to use NEXT_ABI are not strict and may change. >> So now you have to decide if this change can be integrated in 16.04 >> as NEXT_ABI. > >Thank you Thomas for this summary. Then my vote would be in favor of >only keep the deprecation notice for 16.04 and push the code without >the NEXT_ABI ifdefs for 16.07 because: > >- although it's a valuable patch, there is no urgency in having if for > the next release >- NEXT_ABI does make the code harder to read in this case, and I'm > thinking about the patchset from David Hunt (external mempool handler) > that will be in the same situation, and maybe also another patchset > I'm working on.
As I stated in my previous email, I can submit v4 patch. Do you need two patches one for the notice in 16.04 and then one for 16.07? > >Regards, >Olivier > Regards, Keith
