19/02/2020 14:50, Ray Kinsella: > On 19/02/2020 12:43, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 19/02/2020 12:43, Neil Horman: > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:50:09AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 18/02/2020 10:42, Bruce Richardson: > >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:15:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to remind everybody our mistake when defining ABI versions. > >>>>> It has been "fixed" in this commit: > >>>>> http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f26c2b39 > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let's think about the consequence for the experimental libraries. > >>>>> > >>>>> In DPDK 19.11, we use the ABI version 0.200 with soname 0.20 In DPDK > >>>>> 20.02, we use the ABI version 0.2001 with soname 0.201 Numbers are > >>>>> increasing, that's fine. When we'll switch to the new major ABI and use > >>>>> a normal numbering: In DPDK 20.11, we will use the ABI version 0.210 > >>>>> with > >>>>> soname 0.21 Numbers are dropping. > >>>>> > >>>>> In short, for experimental libs, ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we OK with this or do we prefer reverting to normal numbering for > >>>>> experimental libraries in DPDK 20.02? > >>>>> > >>>> Personally, I would not be too concerned about the verions of > >>>> experimental > >>>> libs, so long as they don't conflict across versions and have some > >>>> similarity to the major ABI version for the release. > >>> > >>> You think sorting of the version numbers is not important? > >>> If we don't care comparing experimental version numbers, > >>> then OK, let's drop this patch. But please we need a small vote. > >>> > >>> Note: there would be no problem if we did not vote for having > >>> a special numbering for pure experimental libraries (I am still against). > >>> > >> I don't understand. Why would we change the ABI_VERSION at all in an LTS > >> release at > >> all? This operation is meant to take an an experimental API and mark it as > >> stable by promoting its version number to the next major releases number. > >> As > >> such, in the LTS release, we should keep the soname the same, as there > >> should be > >> no other ABI changes in the promoted API. > > > > The library version number is updated because we add new symbols. > > > > > > So while experimental library version numbers are not "important". > I do agree with Thomas they should be sane, increase and should have a > consistent format. > > Should we always just pad them to 4 places as the simple solution? > i.e. > > DPDK 19.11 ... 0.20 (needs to remain 0.20). > DPDK 20.02 ... 0.2001 > DPDK 20.11 ... 0.2100 > DPDK 21.02 ... 0.2101
A patch from Ferruh got merged. It is adding a dot to keep versioning consistent. Marking this patch as rejected.
