From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Olivier Matz <email@example.com>,
"Wiles, Keith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Jerin Jacob <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: next technical board meeting, 2017-04-06
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:31:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D8912652783ED3@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
> > My Soap box comment:
> > I think we are limiting DPDK’s growth by only focusing on a few new PMDs
> and reworking the existing code. We need to look forward and grow DPDK as
> a community to get more people involved in adding more applications and
> new designs. I believe DPDK.org needs to be a bigger community and not
> just a I/O library called DPDK. We need to actively move the organization to
> include more then just a high speed I/O library. Some will focus on DPDK and
> others will focus on providing a higher level applications, libraries and
> Sorry, I completly disagree with that vision. I think the scope of dpdk
> should be more focused.
> Today, when someone adds a feature, (s)he sometimes updates eal, or
> or any core layer required for its need. It can be just a hack, no matter
> if the feature works. I have many examples like this.
> This makes any rework/enhancement of core libs painful.
> Having separated core libs would encourage people to submit proper
> generic enhancements, to have stable APIs.
I think I understand your problem (reduce the effort of updating the "core" libs), but I also think your proposed solution (ignore all the other libs and apps that are being broken by the change) is wrong.
When faced with a change that has ripple effect everywhere, why not post an RFC and ask for help from the other maintainers to share the burden?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-31 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-30 9:41 next technical board meeting, 2017-04-06 Jerin Jacob
2017-03-30 14:25 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-03-30 15:05 ` Olivier Matz
2017-03-30 15:51 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-03-30 16:03 ` Jay Rolette
2017-03-30 18:09 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-04-03 19:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-04-03 22:53 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-04-04 1:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-04-04 5:01 ` Vincent Jardin
2017-04-04 14:35 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-03-31 8:52 ` Olivier Matz
2017-03-31 9:31 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian [this message]
2017-03-31 14:24 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-03-31 14:39 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-04-06 10:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-04-10 6:49 ` next technical board meeting, 2017-04-10 Yuanhan Liu
2017-04-10 14:34 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-04-10 14:43 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-04-10 14:54 ` Wiles, Keith
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.