Re: Maintaining ABI Compatibility for LTS branch

Sinan Kaya <okaya@...>

On 2/9/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
There are two reasons people are interested:
a) for release stability as you mention
b) for performance as it could be tied into the hash equivalence mechanism for
artefact reuse - if A hasn't changed ABI, B dependning on it needn't rebuild.
There was a proof of concept of b) here:
There are lots of levels it could be implemented at but it is something someone
would need to pick up and drive forward with a long term view to helping with
issues etc.
What would be the minimum acceptable solution with the least investment?
in other words, do we have a list of requirements?

Our team has posted a solution. BMW folks posted a solution.
None of them got merged.

Could we take the version from BMW folks, merge and have the next person
add new features where it doesn't satisfy requirements?

or vice versa? or as Ross said some other work?

or none of the solutions are acceptable?

Join to automatically receive all group messages.