From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] eal: fix lib version for device generalization patches Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:16:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2687270.6CHbVYPQ99@xps13> References: <1477552109-18624-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <1477567752-23039-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <9eb3805d-8f6c-c1ec-4be6-35452a3d8458@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com To: Shreyansh Jain Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D732BA5 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:16:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 140so23610406wmv.0 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 05:16:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9eb3805d-8f6c-c1ec-4be6-35452a3d8458@nxp.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-10-27 17:02, Shreyansh Jain: > Even though I have sent the v4, there is another possibility of > splitting this log across API and ABI changes. > Problem is that most of the changes are quite related in terms of impact > on ABI and API. (some like rte_device is clear enough, though). > Any suggestions? Would repetitions be OK in release notes? In general, API change implies ABI change. I think we must use the "ABI changes" section for cases where API is not changed. No need of repeating in both sections.