Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] doc: clarify alias to experimental period

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

07/07/2020 18:55, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> > On 07/07/2020 17:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 07/07/2020 18:35, Kinsella, Ray:
> > >> On 07/07/2020 16:26, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > >>> 07/07/2020 16:45, Ray Kinsella:
> > >>>> Clarify retention period for aliases to experimental.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
> > >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/abi_versioning.rst
> > >>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ The macros exported are:
> > >>>>  * ``VERSION_SYMBOL_EXPERIMENTAL(b, e)``: Creates a symbol version
> > table entry
> > >>>>    binding versioned symbol ``b@EXPERIMENTAL`` to the internal
> > function ``be``.
> > >>>>    The macro is used when a symbol matures to become part of the
> > >>>> stable ABI, to
> > >>>> -  provide an alias to experimental for some time.
> > >>>> +  provide an alias to experimental until the next major ABI version.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why limiting the period for experimental status?
> > >>> Some API want to remain experimental longer.
> 
> This is not limiting the period.
> This is about how long VERSION_SYMBOL_EXPERIMENTAL should be in place
> for a symbol after the experimental tag is removed for the symbol.

Oh wait, I was wrong. It is only about the alias which is set
AFTER the experimental period.

> > >>> [...]
> > >>>>  In situations in which an ``experimental`` symbol has been stable
> > >>>> for some time,  and it becomes a candidate for promotion to the
> > >>>> stable ABI. At this time, when -promoting the symbol, maintainer
> > >>>> may choose to provide an alias to the -``experimental`` symbol version,
> > so as not to break consuming applications.
> > >>>> +promoting the symbol, the maintainer may choose to provide an
> > >>>> +alias to the ``experimental`` symbol version, so as not to break
> > >>>> +consuming applications. This
> > >>>
> > >>> Please start a sentence on a new line.
> > >>
> > >> ACK
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> +alias will then typically be dropped in the next major ABI version.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see the need for the time estimation.
> 
> I prefer this wording as it clarifying what should be done while creating a patch.

Yes, after a second read, I am OK.