2017-02-24 11:33, Remy Horton: > > On 22/02/2017 19:06, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: > [..] > > This essentially leads to the "other" repos becoming second class > > citizens that can be broken at any time without prior notice or the > > right to influence the change. The amount of maintenance work becomes > > very difficult to quantify (e.g. we all know what a ripple effect a > > chance in the mbuf structure can cause to any of those "other" DPDK > > libraries). > > +1 - In my experience anything other than a single repository ends up in > tears sooner or later. At a previous company I worked on a project where > each "module" went into its own repo, all fourty-five of which were > strung together using Gerrit/Jenkins, the result being I spent more time > on rebases and build breakages than writing business logic. Patchsets > that cross repo boundaries are a recipe for pain, and if DPDK goes down > the same route, it will likley cripple development.
Indeed, that's the idea: give more work to the maintainers and require less work from occasional contributors. It may be a good or wrong idea. Anyway it deserves to be discussed.
