xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* (no subject)
@ 2016-05-19 14:34 Roger Pau Monné
  2016-05-19 14:44 ` when to bump library versions (was: <blank>) Jan Beulich
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roger Pau Monné @ 2016-05-19 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xen-devel
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, Wei Liu, George Dunlap, Andrew Cooper,
	Ian Jackson, Tim Deegan, Jan Beulich

<George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Jan 
Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, 
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Wei 
Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Bcc: 
Subject: Bump library names just after branching
Reply-To: 

Hello,

Currently we bump the shared library names just before the release, so ATM 
xen-unstable is still using the library names from the 4.6 release. This is 
an issue if someone wants to install both Xen 4.6 and xen-unstable in the 
same box (unless you use a different prefix/DESTDIR), because libraries from 
xen-unstable will replace the stable ones.

IMHO, it would make more sense to bump the library names just *after* we 
branch and open the tree for development again. We could even have the 
library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so 
that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the 
versions manually.

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)
  2016-05-19 14:34 (no subject) Roger Pau Monné
@ 2016-05-19 14:44 ` Jan Beulich
  2016-05-19 14:53   ` Roger Pau Monné
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2016-05-19 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roger Pau Monné
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, WeiLiu, George Dunlap, Andrew Cooper,
	Ian Jackson, Tim Deegan, xen-devel

>>> On 19.05.16 at 16:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> Currently we bump the shared library names just before the release, so ATM 
> xen-unstable is still using the library names from the 4.6 release. This is 
> an issue if someone wants to install both Xen 4.6 and xen-unstable in the 
> same box (unless you use a different prefix/DESTDIR), because libraries from 
> xen-unstable will replace the stable ones.
> 
> IMHO, it would make more sense to bump the library names just *after* we 
> branch and open the tree for development again.

As you may have seen in Wei's recent commit, not all libraries have
their versions bumped for a given release.

> We could even have the 
> library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so 
> that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the 
> versions manually.

But so far these two are intentionally private to the xen/ subtree.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)
  2016-05-19 14:44 ` when to bump library versions (was: <blank>) Jan Beulich
@ 2016-05-19 14:53   ` Roger Pau Monné
  2016-05-19 15:01     ` Jan Beulich
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roger Pau Monné @ 2016-05-19 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Beulich
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, WeiLiu, George Dunlap, Andrew Cooper,
	Ian Jackson, Tim Deegan, xen-devel

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:44:59AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.05.16 at 16:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Currently we bump the shared library names just before the release, so ATM 
> > xen-unstable is still using the library names from the 4.6 release. This is 
> > an issue if someone wants to install both Xen 4.6 and xen-unstable in the 
> > same box (unless you use a different prefix/DESTDIR), because libraries from 
> > xen-unstable will replace the stable ones.
> > 
> > IMHO, it would make more sense to bump the library names just *after* we 
> > branch and open the tree for development again.
> 
> As you may have seen in Wei's recent commit, not all libraries have
> their versions bumped for a given release.

IMHO, I would make them all bump, regardless of whether there have been 
changes or not.
 
> > We could even have the 
> > library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so 
> > that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the 
> > versions manually.
> 
> But so far these two are intentionally private to the xen/ subtree.

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't they be global to the whole tree? 
(Config.mk seems like a suitable place).

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)
  2016-05-19 14:53   ` Roger Pau Monné
@ 2016-05-19 15:01     ` Jan Beulich
  2016-05-23 11:06       ` George Dunlap
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2016-05-19 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roger Pau Monné
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, WeiLiu, George Dunlap, Andrew Cooper,
	Ian Jackson, Tim Deegan, xen-devel

>>> On 19.05.16 at 16:53, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:44:59AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 19.05.16 at 16:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > We could even have the 
>> > library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so 
>> > that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the 
>> > versions manually.
>> 
>> But so far these two are intentionally private to the xen/ subtree.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't they be global to the whole tree? 
> (Config.mk seems like a suitable place).

I think originally the idea was that the tool stack isn't really tied to
a specific hypervisor version. What it is tied to is an interface
version (of namely domctl and sysctl).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)
  2016-05-19 15:01     ` Jan Beulich
@ 2016-05-23 11:06       ` George Dunlap
  2016-06-06 12:33         ` Wei Liu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: George Dunlap @ 2016-05-23 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Beulich
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, WeiLiu, Andrew Cooper, Tim Deegan, xen-devel,
	Ian Jackson, Roger Pau Monné

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19.05.16 at 16:53, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:44:59AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> >>> On 19.05.16 at 16:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> > We could even have the
>>> > library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so
>>> > that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the
>>> > versions manually.
>>>
>>> But so far these two are intentionally private to the xen/ subtree.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't they be global to the whole tree?
>> (Config.mk seems like a suitable place).
>
> I think originally the idea was that the tool stack isn't really tied to
> a specific hypervisor version. What it is tied to is an interface
> version (of namely domctl and sysctl).

Sure -- but is this actually useful, and even if it is, is it worth the cost?

Advantages of bumping version number only when the interface actually changes:

* Someone who links against an unstable library can in theory re-use
the same binary after upgrading without re-compiling, *if* the
interface didn't change

Advantages of bumping the version number as soon as the tree opens:

* We don't have to think about whether we need to bump the interface
version or not; it happens as part of the branching checklist
* You can install the most recent release and xen on the same box
without the libraries (which may actually be incompatible, since the
interface may have changed without the version number being bumped)
being overwritten.

Looking just at those, I think it's pretty clear which is more useful.
Are there other angles we should consider?

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)
  2016-05-23 11:06       ` George Dunlap
@ 2016-06-06 12:33         ` Wei Liu
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wei Liu @ 2016-06-06 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: George Dunlap
  Cc: Stefano Stabellini, WeiLiu, Andrew Cooper, Ian Jackson,
	Tim Deegan, Jan Beulich, xen-devel, Roger Pau Monné

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:06:40PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 19.05.16 at 16:53, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:44:59AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> >>> On 19.05.16 at 16:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> > We could even have the
> >>> > library name versions be set based on XEN_VERSION and XEN_SUBVERSION, so
> >>> > that we don't need to go around the different library makefiles bumping the
> >>> > versions manually.
> >>>
> >>> But so far these two are intentionally private to the xen/ subtree.
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't they be global to the whole tree?
> >> (Config.mk seems like a suitable place).
> >
> > I think originally the idea was that the tool stack isn't really tied to
> > a specific hypervisor version. What it is tied to is an interface
> > version (of namely domctl and sysctl).
> 
> Sure -- but is this actually useful, and even if it is, is it worth the cost?
> 
> Advantages of bumping version number only when the interface actually changes:
> 
> * Someone who links against an unstable library can in theory re-use
> the same binary after upgrading without re-compiling, *if* the
> interface didn't change
> 
> Advantages of bumping the version number as soon as the tree opens:
> 
> * We don't have to think about whether we need to bump the interface
> version or not; it happens as part of the branching checklist
> * You can install the most recent release and xen on the same box
> without the libraries (which may actually be incompatible, since the
> interface may have changed without the version number being bumped)
> being overwritten.
> 
> Looking just at those, I think it's pretty clear which is more useful.
> Are there other angles we should consider?
> 

I think it would make sense to just bump the version numbers of the
libraries that we don't have clear commitment on API and ABI stability.
That is everything other than the ones in libs. The one in libs can be
bump when necessary.

Wei.

>  -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-06 12:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-19 14:34 (no subject) Roger Pau Monné
2016-05-19 14:44 ` when to bump library versions (was: <blank>) Jan Beulich
2016-05-19 14:53   ` Roger Pau Monné
2016-05-19 15:01     ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-23 11:06       ` George Dunlap
2016-06-06 12:33         ` Wei Liu

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).