> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Mcnamara, John > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 9:59 AM > To: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhor...@tuxdriver.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:12 PM > > To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model > > > > > ... > > > > > > B) Designate alternates to serve as backups for the maintainer when > > > they are unavailable. This provides high-availablility, and sounds > > > very much like your proposal, but in the interests of clarity, there > > > is still a single maintainer at any one time, it just may change to > > > ensure the continued merging of patches, if the primary maintainer > > > isn't > > available. > > > Ideally however, those backup alternates arent needed, because most > > > of the primary maintainers work in merging pull requests, which are > > > done based on the trust of the submaintainer, and done during a very > > > limited window of time. This also partially addreses multi-vendor > > > fairness if your subtree maintainers come from multiple > > > participating > > companies. > > > > > > Regards > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soo, I feel like we're wandering away from this thread. Are you going > > to make a change to the comitter model? > > Hi, > > Yes. I think we have consensus on the main parts. I'll re-draft a proposal > that we can discuss and then add to the contributors guide. > > John >
I'll submit a draft update to the DPDK Code Contributors guide shortly. John
