From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 07:40:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20150502114059.GB28845@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20150501110914.182dcfb1@urahara> <20150501194951.GA25199@mhcomputing.net> <20150501195932.GD595@fuloong-minipc.musicnaut.iki.fi> <20150501203658.GA26543@mhcomputing.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" , Aaro Koskinen To: Matthew Hall Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150501203658.GA26543-Hv3ogNYU3JfZZajBQzqCxQ@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 10:59:32PM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > > Projects like GCC, GLIBC, binutils, busybox, etc or what? > > > > A. > > You'll notice all of these are low-level UNIX hacker sorts of tools mostly, > with the partial exception of busybox. But even that is mainly for embedded > use. It doesn't mean I don't think they're good and useful, but it does limit > the possible size of the community in my view. > > Since we are talking about how to get the largest widest community possible > for DPDK, it could require doing things a bit differently from how many > low-level tools have historically done things. > Why? Contributors to GCC: ~600 (based on svn) review Contrubutors to glibc : ~300 (based on git) review Contributors to binutils: ~600 Contributors to busybox: ~300 Contributors to DPDK: ~125 Now I grant you that dpdk is a newer, much more niche project, but its disingenuous to state that we _have_ to do things differently to reach a wider audience. We can, but its by no means a prerequisite to gainining a wider audience.