@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# HIP 0007 - Major Versions
+
+## Elevator pitch
+
+We are proposing the acceptance criteria for Hyperlight to reach 1.0 status, what
+major versions mean for Hyperlight, as well as discuss the process for future
+major Hyperlight releases.
+
+## Status quo
+
+Hyperlight is currently at version 0.18.0, with monthly releases happening and
+every release including breaking changes. While we do try and minimize the
+breakage by deprecating APIs before we remove them entirely, we still cannot
+guarantee that users can always upgrade from one version to another.
+
+Versions also carry a social signal. When a project is "pre-1.0" that tends to
+imply it is unstable, experimental, or "beta"-quality. We have heard this from
+multiple potential users. Though whether this perspective is justified is a
+separate discussion.
+
+## What we propose to do about it
+
+We're proposing for Hyperlight to reach 1.0 status and start making API
+compatibility guarantees between versions. Within a major version, minor and
+patch releases will preserve compatibility for stable public APIs in the host
+and guest crates. Upgrading may require rebuilding guest binaries and
+regenerating snapshots, but should not require source changes.
+
+What is explicitly excluded from the stability guarantees however is ABI
+stability. When upgrading from one minor version to another (e.g. 1.0.0 to 1.1.0)
+users will be expected to recompile their guest binaries and regenerate
+snapshots. This is necessary to allow Hyperlight to keep evolving the guest-host
+communication boundary.
+
+Hyperlight 1.0.0 will not be the last major version we're releasing either. On
+some cadence, possibly ~yearly, we will be releasing new major versions of
+Hyperlight. This gives us an opportunity to make breaking changes to the API as
+needed, for example to add multi-threading support to Hyperlight. This HIP does
+not lock us into any specific cadence, all it declares is the intent to release
+new major versions beyond 1.0.0.
+
+## Implementation details and plan
+
+### Requirements
+
+There are six areas of work we need to finish before shipping Hyperlight 1.0:
+
+* **aarch64 support:** support ARM64 on macOS, Linux, and Windows, with guest
+  crashdumps on at least Linux.
+* **Snapshot-based lifecycle:** finish the snapshot-first lifecycle, including
+  creating sandboxes from snapshots and persisting snapshots to disk.
+* **IO queue support:** finish integrating packed virtqueues for guest-host IO,
+  including their behavior across snapshot and restore, and validate the design
+  by integrating it in hyperlight-wasm.
+* **Transport refactor:** finish replacing Flatbuffers with a Serde-based
+  encoding, keeping serialization details out of the public API.
+* **Security, testing, & fuzzing:** complete a security review, address
+  release-blocking findings, and cover the new IO and snapshot paths with tests
+  and fuzzing.
+* **Public API:** remove deprecated APIs and review the host and guest interfaces
+  for consistency before committing to supporting them throughout 1.x.
+
+All of these items will be tracked separately in Hyperlight, and some may even
+require their own follow-up proposals.
+
+### Release Process
+
+The release itself should be relatively straight-forward. If we do things right,
+it shouldn't be too different from most other releases. With the sole exception
+that we'll probably want to write a slightly larger release post instead of our
+usual one.
+
+Depending on the timing we may want to time the release alongside a CNCF/LF
+event, to try and create a moment. However, that shouldn't come at the cost of
+quality and readiness, so this is an opportunity only.
+
+### Guaranteeing compatibility
+
+We're already quite careful in how we replace APIs. However, we might want to
+take extra care by introducing additional guard rails by for example running
+[cargo semver-checks](https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks) in CI.
+Native guest binaries and snapshots must match the exact Hyperlight version
+they run on, including the patch version. We should version-tag both and reject
+mismatches explicitly, guarding against ABI compatibility assumptions across
+versions (see also: [hyrum's law](https://www.hyrumslaw.com/)).
+
+We'll want to think about all the ways to ensure we can guarantee stability,
+while also ensuring we keep the flexibility in all the places we do want it.
+And of course also clearly documenting what we do and don't guarantee.
+
+## Frequently Asked Questions
+
+### Why not commit to ABI stability?
+
+Because we've seen what happens when you do. C++ has effectively frozen its ABI,
+and it's been paying for it ever since. `std::regex` is famously slow and can't
+be fixed, `std::unique_ptr` can't be passed in a register, and when `std::string`
+needed to change in C++11 it took a split "dual ABI" in libstdc++ and years of
+pain to roll out. Titus Winters' paper
+[*ABI: Now or Never*](https://wg21.link/p1863) lays this out well: once you promise
+ABI stability, every past mistake becomes permanent. We don't want that for
+Hyperlight, especially not while the guest-host boundary is still moving.
+
+So instead we only promise API stability. If you upgrade from 1.0 to 1.1 you'll
+need to recompile your guests and regenerate your snapshots, but you shouldn't
+need to change any code. Guests targeting WebAssembly through `hyperlight-wasm`
+can retain their Wasm binaries across Hyperlight upgrades. The native runtime
+still needs to be rebuilt, and any Hyperlight snapshots regenerated.
+
+### Why are you planning to release more major versions?
+
+Because 1.0 isn't the end. It means we're happy enough with the API to commit to
+it, not that we think we got everything right. There are things we already know
+we want that won't fit in the current design. Multi-threading is the obvious
+one: a lot of today's APIs assume a single guest thread, and changing that is
+going to break things.
+
+Major versions give us a place to put those changes. Minor releases stay boring
+and compatible, and breaking changes get batched up and shipped together when
+there's a good reason to. That might be yearly, it might be less often. What we
+don't want is to end up stuck with a 1.0 we can never move away from.
+
+### What does Hyperlight 1.0 mean for Guests?
+
+What we're proposing here only affects the `hyperlight-dev/hyperlight` crates.
+Hyperlight Wasm, Hyperlight Unikraft, and all other guests are not required to
+reach 1.0 status when Hyperlight does. Though a follow-up goal will of course be
+to have those reach 1.0 status too.