(no subject)

(no subject)

[Roger Pau Monné]

<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

Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)

[Jan Beulich]

>>> 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

Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)

[Roger Pau Monné]

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

Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)

[Jan Beulich]

>>> 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

Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)

[George Dunlap]

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

Re: when to bump library versions (was: <blank>)

[Wei Liu]

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