[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] doc: clarify alias to experimental period

Kinsella, Ray mdr at ashroe.eu
Tue Jul 7 19:01:17 CEST 2020



On 07/07/2020 17:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 07/07/2020 18:37, Kinsella, Ray:
>>
>> On 07/07/2020 17:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 07/07/2020 18:35, Kinsella, Ray:
>>>> On 07/07/2020 16:26, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 07/07/2020 16:45, Ray Kinsella:
>>>>>> Clarify retention period for aliases to experimental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
>>>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ The macros exported are:
>>>>>>  * ``VERSION_SYMBOL_EXPERIMENTAL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version table entry
>>>>>>    binding versioned symbol ``b at EXPERIMENTAL`` to the internal function ``be``.
>>>>>>    The macro is used when a symbol matures to become part of the stable ABI, to
>>>>>> -  provide an alias to experimental for some time.
>>>>>> +  provide an alias to experimental until the next major ABI version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why limiting the period for experimental status?
>>>>> Some API want to remain experimental longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> +alias will then typically be dropped in the next major ABI version.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the need for the time estimation.
>>>>
>>>> Will reword to ...
>>>>
>>>> "This alias will then be dropped in the next major ABI version."
>>>
>>> It is not addressing my first comment. Please see above.
>>
>> Thank you, I don't necessarily agree with the first comment :-)
> 
> You don't have to agree. But in this case we must discuss :-)
> 
>> We need to say when the alias should be dropped no?
> 
> I don't think so.
> Until now, it is let to the appreciation of the maintainer.
> If we want to change the rule, especially for experimental period,
> it must be said clearly and debated.

It doesn't make _any_ sense to maintain an alias after the new ABI.

The alias is there to maintain ABI compatibility, 
there is no reason to maintain compatibility in the new ABI - so it should be dropped

 


More information about the dev mailing list