2016-04-07 11:18, Thomas Monjalon: > 2016-04-05 15:56, Thomas Monjalon: > > The goal of this email is to get some feedback on how important it is > > to fix the DPDK namespace. > > Everybody agree every symbols must be prefixed. Checking and fixing the > namespace consistency will be in the roadmap. > > It seems most of you agree renaming would be a nice improvement but not > so important.
The main benefits are: - consistency with the name of the project - avoid a namespace clash with another library using "rte" prefix (the dpdk word is kind of reserved now) > The main drawback is the induced backporting pain, even if we have > some scripts to convert the patches to the old namespace. > Note: the backports can be in DPDK itself or in the applications. > > > If there is enough agreement that we should do something, I suggest to > > introduce the "dpdk_" prefix slowly and live with both "rte_" and "dpdk_" > > during some time. > > We could start using the new prefix for the new APIs (example: crypto) > > or when there is a significant API break (example: mempool). > > The slow change has been clearly rejected in favor of a complete change > in one patch. > The timing was also discussed as it could impact the pending patches. > So it would be done at the end or the beginning of a release. > Marc suggests to do it for 16.04 as the numbering scheme has changed. > > There is no strong conclusion at this point because we need to decide > wether the renaming deserves to be done or never. > I suggest to take the inputs from the technical board. The technical board has agreed that the renaming cannot happen in 16.04. The pro/cons balance need to be discussed more. The plan is to keep the discussion open during the next 2 weeks and take a decision based on the discussion outcome.