[v4,2/3] doc: make RTE_NEXT_ABI optional
Checks
Commit Message
Initial process requires oncoming changes described in deprecation
notice should be implemented in a RTE_NEXT_ABI gated way.
This has been discussed in technical board, and since this can cause a
multiple #ifdef blocks in multiple locations of the code, can be
confusing specially for the modifications that requires data structure
changes. Anyway this was not happening in practice.
Making RTE_NEXT_ABI usage more optional based on techboard decision:
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/123519.html
The intention with using RTE_NEXT_ABI was to provide more information
to the user about planned changes, and force developer to think more in
coding level. Since RTE_NEXT_ABI become optional, now the preferred way
to do this is, if possible, sending changes, described in deprecation
notice, as a separate patch and reference it in deprecation notice.
Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
---
Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Cc: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
Cc: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
---
doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst | 15 ++++++---------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
24/01/2019 19:10, Ferruh Yigit:
> Initial process requires oncoming changes described in deprecation
> notice should be implemented in a RTE_NEXT_ABI gated way.
>
> This has been discussed in technical board, and since this can cause a
> multiple #ifdef blocks in multiple locations of the code, can be
> confusing specially for the modifications that requires data structure
> changes. Anyway this was not happening in practice.
>
> Making RTE_NEXT_ABI usage more optional based on techboard decision:
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/123519.html
>
> The intention with using RTE_NEXT_ABI was to provide more information
> to the user about planned changes, and force developer to think more in
> coding level. Since RTE_NEXT_ABI become optional, now the preferred way
> to do this is, if possible, sending changes, described in deprecation
> notice, as a separate patch and reference it in deprecation notice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
@@ -73,19 +73,16 @@ being provided. The requirements for doing so are:
interest" be sought for each deprecation, for example: from NIC vendors,
CPU vendors, end-users, etc.
-#. The changes (including an alternative map file) must be gated with
- the ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` option, and provided with a deprecation notice at the
- same time.
- It will become the default ABI in the next release.
+#. The changes (including an alternative map file) can be included with
+ deprecation notice, in wrapped way by the ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` option,
+ to provide more details about oncoming changes.
+ ``RTE_NEXT_ABI`` wrapper will be removed when it become the default ABI.
+ More preferred way to provide this information is sending the feature
+ as a separate patch and reference it in deprecation notice.
#. A full deprecation cycle, as explained above, must be made to offer
downstream consumers sufficient warning of the change.
-#. At the beginning of the next release cycle, every ``RTE_NEXT_ABI``
- conditions will be removed, the ``LIBABIVER`` variable in the makefile(s)
- where the ABI is changed will be incremented, and the map files will
- be updated.
-
Note that the above process for ABI deprecation should not be undertaken
lightly. ABI stability is extremely important for downstream consumers of the
DPDK, especially when distributed in shared object form. Every effort should