[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pipeline: remove experimental tag from API

[Thomas Monjalon]

13/10/2021 11:43, Kinsella, Ray:
> On 13/10/2021 10:40, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 13/10/2021 10:51, Kinsella, Ray:
> >> On 12/10/2021 22:52, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 12/10/2021 22:34, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> >>>>> 01/09/2021 14:20, Jasvinder Singh:
> >>>>>> These APIs were introduced in 18.05, therefore removing
> >>>>>> experimental tag to promote them to stable state.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  lib/pipeline/rte_port_in_action.h | 10 ----------
> >>>>>>  lib/pipeline/rte_table_action.h   | 18 ------------------
> >>>>>>  lib/pipeline/version.map          | 16 ++++++----------
> >>>>>>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cristian, please can you check whether you intend to keep these functions in
> >>>>> future?
> >>>>> If they are candidate to be removed, there is no point to promote them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Thomas,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, they are candidate for removal, as the new rte_swx_pipeline API evolves.
> >>>>
> >>>> But removing them requires updating the drivers/net/softnic code to use the new API, which is not going to be completed in time for release 21.11.
> >>>>
> >>>> So given this lag, it might be better to simply promote these functions to stable API now, as Ray suggests, instead of continuing to keep them experimental; then, once these functions are no longer used, then we can remove them, most likely in 22.11.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I will ack these patches, but I am willing to reconsider if you feel strongly against this approach.
> >>>
> >>> I think we should not promote API that we know will disappear soon.
> >>> The stable status means something for the users.
> >>> Ray, what is your opinion?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well - I agree with Cristian (he and I discuss this a few weeks ago).
> >> My position is if you are going to maintain an API, that means giving a few guarantees.
> >> The API's have been experimental for 3 years ... at what point do they mature?
> >>
> >> However, I agree there is two ways to look at this thing, I try to be pragmatic. 
> >> Maturing of any ABI/API is a conversation between a maintainer and the contributor.
> >> If they strongly feel, it is a pointless exercise - I won't argue. 
> > 
> > I think you did't get it.
> > This API will be removed soon.
> > That's why I think it doesn't make sense to make them stable, just before removing.
> > 
> 
> Nope, I got it 110%
> I reflected both my opinion as ABI Maintainer, and tried to be pragmatic about the situation.
> 
> As I said "Maturing of any ABI/API is a conversation between a maintainer and the contributor.
> If they strongly feel, it is a pointless exercise - I won't argue."

Sorry, I don't understand your position.
Do you think we should promote functions to stable which are candidate to be removed soon?