From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (mail-pd0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A45FB62 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:09:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pdbqa5 with SMTP id qa5so133033854pdb.1 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1opeuX/J/tI5UyRv3SVmCjPARa5u/OxQRDmG4FuUTPo=; b=K684ofP6yvI2V02Yg0eXeiPtS+FeCjn5iwccNTm5QXmJB3V76j7T5EhaQcoEpvbbe6 Wrn0FssEzp7navC4YVPKyRUkaoYwy3pr96Lgo5rRHO8KG0gL4nVR9NHmMQP0oWD1b1Ry x3J2lAbO+1us68C7V6nGriPxv45SADwj7P+s2WnC3pXYbLeBGwf7j+mstZ0y1AkyXZmL MFODJtZAKuwJL+WIJbEz82QuG3SSnipdGJDbZV+6a4VwI1TOu0JDvJqYhfCNDYYgIQf5 f7uhfFozSwsoDmKiwHI8KJDIzmeDdW3Bg8ZE8Uws7tQSTr98cwKv9AHcXvgHQiLiS36o i+jw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnkJsQOmNMLyGZaFowm9uaUkR6yCy2QhMhL1woqeow1kIvDe+EoAjghospy1ukqcBc09RM X-Received: by 10.68.173.161 with SMTP id bl1mr23695305pbc.17.1430150958478; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from urahara (static-50-53-82-155.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.82.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wh6sm19755686pbc.96.2015.04.27.09.09.17 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:09:22 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Dave Neary Message-ID: <20150427090922.3d8ef2c6@urahara> In-Reply-To: <553E2DD8.6080908@redhat.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150424175124.GA30624@mhcomputing.net> <553B9706.1060904@bisdn.de> <20150426215644.GA9021@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> <553E2DD8.6080908@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:09:19 -0000 On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:38:48 -0400 Dave Neary wrote: > What Keith is describing is very similar to a change management/change > control board you might find for production/IT processes: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_control_board > > An efficient change management board approves "low overhead" changes > automatically/very quickly, and focusses on the 10% of changes which > could be disruptive (and what disruptive means changes from one > environment to another) - for code it would be any patches that > potentially conflict, anything that could cause regressions, add > instability or uncertainty, and any feature which can be implemented > multiple ways. > > Not saying this would work - I have never seen an open source project > implement a change management process for handling patches, and > instinctively I agree with you Neil that it would be a lot of overhead, > but it's an interesting thought exercise to think how it might work ZMQ has a community process with a simple review process and a "default YES" policy. http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22