[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability

[Ray Kinsella]

On 08/04/2019 11:15, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 08-Apr-19 10:04 AM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>> On 07/04/2019 10:48, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 04/04/2019 16:07, Burakov, Anatoly:
>>>> On 04-Apr-19 1:52 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>>>> On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:29:19AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03-Apr-19 4:42 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>> [SNIP]
[SNIP]
> 
> My worry here is that some API's get more attention than others, but
> requirements for freezing the API/ABI are applicable to all of them.
> 
> Everyone loves discussing specifics of mbufs and dev API's, and I have
> no doubt that DPDK community can arrive at a consensus with regards to
> mbuf format etc. in a timely manner, since everyone has a vested
> interest in those covering their use cases. 
> I have way less confidence
> in us possibly having saner and more maintainable platform
> initialization code, 

I think you are right, however its that same lack of enthusiasm that
would hamper a DPDK 1.0 specification. Similarly I can see a DPDK 1.0
specification effort becoming an endless process, as it would always be
low on DPDK contributors priority list.

Instead I recommend we set an API freeze date to focus peoples minds,
advertise what it means and contributors will respond and look after the
areas they care/are responsible for.

> simply because any attempt to change those will
> likely be met with "please keep all of the old stuff working", which
> gets us right back to where we started.
> 

And to be honest that is a fair enough expectation from them, right?
To Stephen's if we need to break it, let's do it once more and then
never again.