On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 5:29 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > Hi, > > > > One question about this patch. I will send another patch soon which will > > require to modify the file created by this patch. So, should I use the > > dpdk-next for sending the new patch or the dpdk stable branch? > > I guess by "dpdk stable branch" you mean dpdk main repo, because we also > have stable sub-tree which is something else. > > Yes. That's what I meant. > > I > > understand that using the latter will imply some integration later, but > > I really do not know if I should facilitate things using dpdk-next in > > this case. > > If the patch is driver patch, please send to the next-net sub-tree, as a > PMD maintainer, I expect majority of your patches should target next-net. > > OK > If patch just touches the documentation of the driver, you can send it > to the main tree, but both next-net sub-tree and main tree are OK since > PMD documentation is not heavily modified, integration will be (mostly) > easy. > > Specific to the this document (feature.ini), since this is directly > correlated with PMD source code, to update this file, you need to update > the source code. And it is better to update this document in next-net as > part of the patchset that updates the PMD code. > > Fine. > > > > By the way, it is not just about this specific patch, because I have > > other almost ready which I want to push before the 16.02 deadline. > > Please push 17.02 patches as soon as possible, although there is > technically still some time for the integration deadline, practically > there is less because of holidays in between ... > > I'm working on this. I have been busy doing other more priority things but this is now top priority for me. Thanks > > > > > <...> >
