> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 2:48 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Christian > Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>; Markos Chandras > <mchandras at suse.de>; Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC: DPDK Long Term Support > > While I don't disagree with that statement (LTS does provide both of those > things if the maintainer does it properly), I'm forced to ask the > question, before we solve this problem in a new way, lets ask why the > existing way isn't being used. Do developers just not care about > backwards compatibility? Is the process to hard? Something else? I > really don't like the idea of abandoning what currently exists to replace > it with something else, without first addressing why what we have isn't > working.
Hi Neil, I think these questions around why the current ABI policy isn't working (or at least not working well) and how it can be fixed are worth raising as a new discussion. John. --
