From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mcnamara, John" Subject: Re: RFC: DPDK Long Term Support Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:17:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2142445.VVEujR2XLL@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Christian Ehrhardt , Markos Chandras , "Panu Matilainen" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E3795DC for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:17:22 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2142445.VVEujR2XLL@xps13> Content-Language: en-US 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" > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 5:05 PM > To: Mcnamara, John > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Christian Ehrhardt ; > Markos Chandras ; Panu Matilainen > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC: DPDK Long Term Support >=20 > Hi, >=20 > 2016-06-03 15:07, Mcnamara, John: > > Introduction > > ------------ > > > > This document sets out a proposal for a DPDK Long Term Support release > (LTS). >=20 > In general, LTS refer to a longer maintenance than than regular one. > Here we are talking to doing some maintenance as stable releases first. > Currently we have no maintenance at all. > So I suggest to differentiate "stable branches" and "LTS" for some stable > branches. Hi Thomas, I have no argument against this. It would be great to have a series of stab= le branches of which some are LTS. But at a minimum we are committing to have a least one maintained stable br= anch=20 that will also be a LTS. =20 > I wonder if Yuanhan is OK to maintain every stable releases which could b= e > requested/needed? Or should we have other committers for the stable > releases that Yuanhan would not want to maintain himself? > The Linux model is to let people declare themselves when they want to > maintain a stable branch. I think it is fine to have other committers. > > The proposed duration of the LTS support is 2 years. >=20 > I think we should discuss the support duration for each release > separately. >=20 > > There will only be one LTS branch being maintained at any time. At the > > end of the 2 year cycle the maintenance on the previous LTS will be > wound down. >=20 > Seems a bit too restrictive. > Currently, there is no maintenance at all because nobody was volunteer. > If Yuanhan is volunteer for a stable branch every 2 years, fine. > If someone else is volunteer for other branches, why not let him do it? I see no problem with that. This proposal just reflects that fact that we have only had one volunteer to date and is based on what could be reasonabl= y done by one person (plus the validation support). If more maintainers come= =20 forward we can have more/more frequent stable branches. We will, however, be constrained by the validation effort that can be offer= ed,=20 unless there are other validation volunteers. > > The proposed initial LTS version will be DPDK 16.07. The next > > versions, based on a 2 year cycle, will be DPDK 18.08, 20.08, etc. >=20 > Let's do a first run with 16.07 and see later what we want to do next. > How long time a stable branch must be announced before its initial > release? Ok. The statement at the end about reviewing at the end of the first year is meant to cover adjustments like this. I think that we will have to see how things work out in practice and adjust as we go. > > What changes should be backported > > --------------------------------- > > > > * Bug fixes that don't break the ABI. >=20 > And API? > And behaviour (if not clearly documented in the API)? Yes. It should say ABI and API. Undocumented but implied or existing bahaviour should also be maintained. > > (OSV reps please confirm.) > > > > * Ubuntu 16.04 LTS > > * RHEL 7.3 > > * SuSE 11 SP4 or 12 > > * FreeBSD 10.3 >=20 > I'm sure there will be more validation on the field or from contributors. Hopefully. :-) John. --=20