From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911812BAC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:53:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f82so131689669wmf.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:53:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=VAm7a9KS90qAwnyeToi7kSR00zguoh9Pnyk+Ru10yok=;
 b=iCfXvFVkW9CMxsM9MFRUDLb27baKud5F4ajYr3Dzx2xAZeolHDgsLbiyn46A1KQnZN
 slaIjSLtiOhUjxtTmRuYzbw+WqSogn6rIwJEbfjk7BMkIPuJKFKEzzkd5d56npRCVXAW
 S1qKezq0Lsx0ZTL7Xvxjo9WRLDw5jh/2IP5/OM0PU72vEXUFSq0qcqBLl70TVNMWl9Do
 +DXiROiMKqKE7ucKP/JAt0pYuQIvQHlw0OygPaR/uRE2uE/WssHSPa///2xwaIRvMYbv
 I0Gds/rEoCudSwIegmrFcYeOZNsARqfCuB1MYC5WkravqDxPyiafwNXu6QeFu4i9H59R
 PPVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent
 :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=VAm7a9KS90qAwnyeToi7kSR00zguoh9Pnyk+Ru10yok=;
 b=Kwj4yWawUF3Vo6E5OTPsqt8mpBDWASmoosrxNWG+6dkvRdSU1HqHCKg3JdWLe14yCQ
 Av+7BSWvBdKTtE9VCUt7nftkarB1IRkq55Lz1IIYn5e3gtycH4prr0BeQbZq210dAQH5
 RmHFoDyqj8Vq5Zlep1mZwKjAtym/YEIRmusc3hlqZ50T0hYYnPMpVxh180fB1VI/Ot+y
 jNcKhpbL1NDLADhbi+7UBaQHX7ZOcCh+k1tHmuHfXASyAAYDAZHPD6lZkH7wCF0n/ayZ
 os0phLNz1yTo80Ru12FkrTZCNqn6hw7UyWM6ySnUKo8O6wQUzr9UsL21IPz7H4Db4lBO
 JyMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00i3SJZD08U53BqjjPOibrzI0LP3U/MS5ErvPdgfXUCQtBqwzgl/TS8Z+hZkAPZhMdz
X-Received: by 10.28.73.136 with SMTP id w130mr12274150wma.82.1479718424221;
 Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xps13.localnet (183.20.90.92.rev.sfr.net. [92.90.20.183])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f126sm18161034wme.22.2016.11.21.00.53.41
 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128);
 Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:53:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:52:41 +0100
Message-ID: <1855350.07sWV4iMZa@xps13>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20161118161025.GC29049@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE202661F22@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20161118161025.GC29049@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:53:44 -0000

2016-11-18 13:09, Neil Horman:
> A) Further promote subtree maintainership.  This was a conversation that I
> proposed some time ago, but my proposed granularity was discarded in favor
> of something that hasn't worked as well (in my opinion).  That is to say a
> few driver pmds (i40e and fm10k come to mind) have their own tree that
> send pull requests to Thomas.

Yes we tried this fine granularity and stated that it was not working well.
We are now using the bigger granularity that you describe below.

> We should be sharding that at a much higher
> granularity and using it much more consistently.  That is to say, that we
> should have a maintainer for all the ethernet pmds, and another for the
> crypto pmds, another for the core eal layer, another for misc libraries
> that have low patch volumes, etc.

Yes we could open a tree for EAL and another one for the core libraries.

> Each of those subdivisions should have
> their own list to communicate on, and each should have a tree that
> integrates patches for their own subsystem, and they should on a regular
> cycle send pull requests to Thomas.

Yes I think it is now a good idea to split the mailing list traffic,
at least for netdev and cryptodev.

> Thomas in turn should by and large,
> only be integrating pull requests.  This should address our high-
> throughput issue, in that it will allow multiple maintainers to share the
> workload, and integration should be relatively easy.

Yes in an ideal organization, the last committer does only a last check
that technical plan and fairness are respected.
So it gives more time to coordinate the plans :)

> 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.

About the merge window, I do not have a strong opinion about how it can be
improved. However, I know that closing the window too early makes developer
unhappy because it makes wait - between development start and its release -
longer.