21/04/2020 08:01, Ray Kinsella: > > On 20/04/2020 18:37, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 20/04/2020 19:31, Ray Kinsella: > >> > >> Our only commitment is to the stability of the v19.11/v20 ABI, until v21. > >> > >> That said, once an ABI migrates from EXPERIMENTAL to v21, it _shouldn't_ > >> be changing. > >> We don't have a strict commitment to the v21 ABI until v20.11. > >> > >> However if v21 is changing across quarterlies (outside of additions) ... > >> something else is wrong. > > > > The only way to check a symbol is not changing in a quarterly release > > is to test it. That's what we wanted to enforce: > > compare 20.02 ABI in 20.05 release. > > > > What other process do you suggest? > > > > Well I guess it's understanding the reason why you are doing something. > I can see reasons for wanting to test against both v19.11 and v20.02. > > v19.11 because our strict commitment is to the v20 abi. > v20.02 to ensure that v21 symbols are not changing between quarterly releases. > > On v20, since you tested v20.02 against v19.11 during the v20.02 release > cycle. > The v20 symbols should not have changed during the v20.02 release cycle. > > I take your point, that then testing v20.05 against v20.02 would catch both > v20 and v21 changes.
OK, so we need a policy or process update to make this conclusion clear to everybody.
