On 30/06/2021 20:56, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 07:38:05PM +0100, Kinsella, Ray wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+Promotion to stable
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Ordinarily APIs marked as ``experimental`` will be promoted to the stable API
+once a maintainer and/or the original contributor is satisfied that the API is
+reasonably mature. In exceptional circumstances, should an API still be

this seems vague and arbitrary. is there a way we can have a more
quantitative metric for what "reasonably mature" means.

quoted

+classified as ``experimental`` after two years and is without any prospect of
+becoming part of the stable API. The API will then become a candidate for
+removal, to avoid the acculumation of abandoned symbols.

i think with the above comment the basis for removal then depends on
whatever metric is used to determine maturity. 
if it is still changing
then it seems like it is useful and still evolving so perhaps should not
be removed but hasn't changed but doesn't meet the metric for being made
stable then perhaps it becomes a candidate for removal.

Good idea. 

I think it is reasonable to add a clause that indicates that any change 
to the "API signature" would reset the clock.

a time based strategy works but i guess the follow-on to that is how is
the clock tracked and how does it get updated? i don't think trying to
troll through git history will be effective.

one nit, i think "api signature" doesn't cover all cases of what i would
regard as change. i would prefer to define it as "no change where api/abi
compatibility or semantic change occurred"? which is a lot more strict
but in practice is necessary to support binaries when abi/api is stable.

i.e. if a recompile is necessary with or without code change then it's a
change.

Having thought a bit ... this becomes a bit problematic.

Many data-structures in DPDK are nested, 
these can have a ripple effect when changed - a change to mbuf is a good example.

What I saying is ...
I don't think changes in ABI due to in-direct reasons should count.
If there is a change due to a deliberate change in the ABI signature 
that is fine, reset the clock.

If there is a change due to some nested data-structure, 
3-levels down changing in my book that doesn't count. 
As that may or may not have been deliberate, and is almost impossible to police. 

Checking anything but a deliberate change to the ABI signature,
would be practically impossible IMHO. 

quoted

However equally any changes to the implementation do not reset the clock.

Would that work?

that works for me.

v2 on the way.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+The promotion or removal of symbols will typically form part of a conversation
+between the maintainer and the original contributor.

this should extend beyond just symbols. there are other changes that
impact the abi where exported symbols don't change. e.g. additions to
return values sets.> 
thanks for working on this.