From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Process for removing __rte_experimental Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1548019.9fvx9bZ0Lj@xps> References: <3ce83a95-8fa0-dfdd-978d-29c5c439a10c@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Ferruh Yigit , bluca@debian.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com To: Shreyansh Jain Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1BE239 for ; Fri, 25 May 2018 11:50:57 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <3ce83a95-8fa0-dfdd-978d-29c5c439a10c@nxp.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 25/05/2018 11:35, Shreyansh Jain: > While reading through [1], I couldn't understand if __rte_experimental > and EXPERIMENTAL tag removed from code and map file, respectively, are > categorized under ABI breakage or not. Thus, whether deprecation for > them should be sent or not in a release cycle for removal in subsequent > release. > > Logically, EXPERIMENTAL APIs are not part of stable APIs/ABIs and hence > they don't really break an ABI. Thus, deprecation for them doesn't make > sense. (or, as Luca noted on IRC, removing experimental is like > de-deprecation :) ) I agree, no need for prior notice, in my opinion. > On IRC, Luca pointed out that in one of the Tech Board meeting minutes > [2], this was recorded but that too has slight ambiguity to it. > > Any thoughts on this? Or, was this documented somewhere other than [1]? > > [1] http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/versioning.html > [2] https://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/079961.html (Section 2-b) >