From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EF62C29 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 22:29:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Aug 2017 13:29:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,359,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="122682543" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.3.119]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2017 13:29:25 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:29:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:29:24 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Neil Horman Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20170811202923.GA71096@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170809202132.GA13981@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170809202132.GA13981@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Announcement of SSE requirement change in dpdk X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:29:29 -0000 On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:21:32PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > Can anyone point out to me when and where the change to require SSE4.2 was > dicussed? The first I saw of it was when the commit to the release notes went > in on August 3, and I can find no prior mention of it, save for the patches that > went in separately in the prior weeks. > > Neil > There was no real widespread discussion of it, if that's what you are looking for. I made the proposal via patch, and it was reviewed and acked by a number of folks, with nobody raising any objections at the time. Possibly it was a change that should have been more widely publicised ahead of time, but I'm not sure what form that publicization should have taken, since all tech discussion happens on the dev mailing list anyway. Not that I'm planning any similar changes, but for the future, what do you think the process for changes like this should be - and what changes would classify for it? If we have a process problem, let's try and fix it. Regards, /Bruce.