From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB46241DCA; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:25:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD82E40EE3; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:25:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E9940ED9; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:25:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD385C017D; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:25:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1677867919; x=1677954319; bh=SaVvLY028/LN5YmeNcxuV2Wbqy+QnAzV5wJ j8893EE8=; b=ZnCFl9jVKCsAuCpfTTwwbjc6l7LWdaP/2hlmYa9Sgof8ASYyRCL YveQUY5pzq/KXTjEX03nWZZTr6eO64QWRNWx4rpKW+hfsIqAiSdEFfl2nXIGmSKr fFPpwtSKyfX3Js6KQUCdHYwlOYsjsbi09n99kgqsOYC5KwyWx2oTJ3HlAaQPRGVg g//eyWdevU1dU2gvu3gHMU0U236u/9TNgdrHjdlvqbiShUMsCX12qynbpYd4oaA5 PCYuUvwLjakNKMfvJSSBiyTb0yEiWuK6YHULb2KvI5t3hRkD70nTGb+87sWXfe7H /bTMj/4t64Dpqxfo2aAEZcghGK7wqWrzYmQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1677867919; x=1677954319; bh=SaVvLY028/LN5YmeNcxuV2Wbqy+QnAzV5wJ j8893EE8=; b=GzQopNOCCokzTiELVdgQv+oJ4BsXTBOjaEg90DHMH0qeF1i0SXB oj2698jes2mCMOiDQZfOepBwx+I82oN7mwNeLVqv9lF9OzrXo3ORnn7jo2VBNunv VThtlGARtdcNhWG5FewtbQZ4gwTTXRoVF9cj56k6lxmOJb5GYSV2Phaoe+oIYIoG si4SRL5/DFMEU+zMyA9Xw7QYYf66Ku1PA41paMrNLAI5qvZypXje8FFL7Z0kFDhI 95RjpbgHBjr+Ulz50yzXJrln4bexBFcar0sIpLRwBVQX6DrRD2H3n6nf/kpH7f2y 1pb8bngU9PEKKapT+Y2oNZbcHoniJ2aTtRw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudelledguddtjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddt ieekgfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:25:18 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: web@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-web] [RFC PATCH] process: new library approval in principle Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:25:16 +0100 Message-ID: <11338869.jrtcCam0TZ@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20230213092616.3589932-1-jerinj@marvell.com> References: <20230213092616.3589932-1-jerinj@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Thanks for formalizing our process. 13/02/2023 10:26, jerinj@marvell.com: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/content/process/_index.md First question: is the website the best place for this process? Inside the code guides, we have a contributing section, but I'm not sure it is a good fit for the decision process. In the website, you are creating a new page "process". Is it what we want? What about making it a sub-page of "Technical Board"? > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > ++++ > +title = "Process" > +weight = "9" > ++++ > + > +## Process for new library approval in principle > + > +### Rational s/Rational/Rationale/ > + > +Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and then full patch-sets is > +significant work and getting early approval-in-principle that a library help DPDK contributors > +avoid wasted effort if it is not suitable for various reasons. That's a long sentence we could split. > + > +### Process > + > +1. When a contributor would like to add a new library to DPDK code base, the contributor must send > +the following items to DPDK mailing list for TB approval-in-principle. I think we can remove "code base". TB should be explained: Technical Board. > + > + - Purpose of the library. > + - Scope of the library. Not sure I understand the difference between Purpose and Scope. > + - Any licensing constraints. > + - Justification for adding to DPDK. > + - Any other implementations of the same functionality in other libs/products and how this version differs. libs/products -> libraries/projects > + - Public API specification header file as RFC > + - Optional and good to have. You mean providing API is optional at this stage? > + - TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more clarity on scope and purpose. > + > +2. TB to schedule discussion on this in upcoming TB meeting along with author. Based on the TB > +schedule and/or author availability, TB may need maximum three TB meeting slots. Better to translate the delay into weeks: 5 weeks? > + > +3. Based on mailing list and TB meeting discussions, TB to vote for approval-in-principle and share > +the decision in the mailing list. I think we should say here that it is safe to start working on the implementation after this step, but the patches will need to match usual quality criterias to be effectively accepted.