[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] version: 20.02-rc0

[Kinsella, Ray]

QQ.

What do you plan to do then, when you go for longer periods of ABI stability?

Ray K

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Sent: Monday 2 December 2019 15:40
> To: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev <dev at dpdk.org>; Neil
> Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] version: 20.02-rc0
> 
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:29:06PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:57 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Start a new release cycle with empty release notes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I would prefer increasing the ABI version to 20.2 for an easy
> > > mapping with code version:
> > >         DPDK 19.11 = ABI 20
> > >         libs 19.11 = .so.20.0
> > >         DPDK 20.02 = ABI 20
> > >         libs 20.02 = .so.20.2
> > >         DPDK 20.05 = ABI 20
> > >         libs 20.05 = .so.20.5
> > >         DPDK 20.08 = ABI 20
> > >         libs 20.08 = .so.20.8
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > +1 but no strong opinion.
> >
> I like that idea too, though again no strong opinion either way.