From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: decision process and DPDK scope
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5235900.UHrQLgMuJO@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B9CB4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
2017-02-09 11:54, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new
> > proposed features are explained, discussed and approved enough in
> > the community.
>
> I assume you don't mean every new feature, just those that involve
> major changes (new libraries, new/modified APIs etc.). Is that correct?
Yes, it is not about drivers. It is more about API.
> > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights to
> > the threads which require more attention.
> > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be
> > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope.
> >
> > Openness of a large community is proven by its active feedbacks.
>
> +1
>
> At the moment, when there's no feedback on an RFC or patch set, there's no way of knowing whether that means people are happy with it or that nobody has reviewed it. Using the Tech Board to highlight RFCs/patch sets that require more review is a good idea.
Yes it is my thought: we should have several explicit agreements for
important patches.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-09 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-09 11:11 decision process and DPDK scope Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-09 11:54 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-02-09 13:23 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-02-09 12:20 ` [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2017-02-09 22:49 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-02-10 15:54 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-10 17:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-13 10:34 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-13 15:21 ` Mcnamara, John
2017-02-13 15:58 ` Wiles, Keith
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5235900.UHrQLgMuJO@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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.