On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:25:46 +, Bruce Richardson
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:17:31PM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:33:11 +, Remy Horton
> > wrote:
> > > On 22/02/2017 19:06, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > This essentially leads to the "o
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:17:31PM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:33:11 +, Remy Horton
> wrote:
> > 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 ti
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:33:11 +, Remy Horton
wrote:
> 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 amou
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:07:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-02-22 19:06, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> > ...
> >
> > > The impact of having separate repositories is to reduce the work of a
> > > contributor touching many areas in a rework. This cost is transfered
> > > to the maintainer of t
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
2017-02-22 19:06, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> ...
>
> > The impact of having separate repositories is to reduce the work of a
> > contributor touching many areas in a rework. This cost is transfered
> > to the maintainer of the separate repository impacted by the change
> > in the main repository. So
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 al
...
> The impact of having separate repositories is to reduce the work of a
> contributor touching many areas in a rework. This cost is transfered
> to the maintainer of the separate repository impacted by the change
> in the main repository. So it becomes this question:
> Do we prefer requiring s
...
> > > 1/
> > > I suggest that each new library must be developed in a separate
> repository
> > > on dpdk.org. Then it can be asked to integrate it in the main
> > > project/repo.
> > > Such discussion must happen on the mailing list and the techboard will
> vote
> > > for the integration of t
2017-02-21 13:46, Bruce Richardson:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:16:59PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2017-02-17 10:22, Richardson, Bruce:
> > > 5. Accept and review new libraries
> > > * Discussion begun on this topic, but no consensus reached before time
> > > ran out
> > > * Most members
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:16:59PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-02-17 10:22, Richardson, Bruce:
> > 4. Issue of review and timely feedback
> > * Discussion focused on review of patches for existing DPDK
> > components/libraries
> > * Agreed that patch maintainers are primarily responsibl
2017-02-17 10:22, Richardson, Bruce:
> 4. Issue of review and timely feedback
> * Discussion focused on review of patches for existing DPDK
> components/libraries
> * Agreed that patch maintainers are primarily responsible for accepting
> patches in their area, and need to ensure sufficient rev
12 matches
Mail list logo
