From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com (mail-wr0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7802BB2 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:10:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id o22so7246441wro.1 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:10:46 -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=oCz5zikUrX90E9TrXt2e4GjZu6/FNDk2QCYT/GeId+0=; b=qRxeEa/5wi8q4bLYqE8XIPlnC++RRblouVNm2lznJY3tZCtoOqQT5IFMPnVHCfXO7R QxPx+qAwTa6+O0txuSmTzGxTcvhteo+No58OyCYnHJ0R+J02Nevlmf9xFlHtOsuSnWE4 Ab0fKN4JgLpqbAHnnQ0NjFaNwKJtiFhWUn1L47l1mucrdk1q6HfBJIg+fNjDyHqZPe8g witLhfepvkQPoPXAezJ9UX0YDmqXFeiVN0Jwd0pKbSCwCpaKkHLsfpU8h40MsAsyr6qB 3rhKzMYJWq7XOhhsX7Go5rR8xvJILn9pvTzrZKVmnhCBfYYvKn5TgMLvE3ECDDaT3ECk uNRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oCz5zikUrX90E9TrXt2e4GjZu6/FNDk2QCYT/GeId+0=; b=K97MlGyiYnOV/tedWQVx7wJcCnaozrQMAW0wym+N+GH8lsABKMo/U61/am71fRBoBs +Y9/hbNo8r8rebU+GFHWRaD4HGvzZphfxvr2reVS8XSY5Ua8+RawOp6QCkPho9mY7f1y IHBDgKidAFH9hJnyFoUGVRViHu0eKc9d6Rs98X0VR8tSvkchzfGQzRSyBH0p7J7ck7qo hGK5WYSPAEZzM8vv4kB+VOqFP3A09YEBCOo6gwjPe/BSU10bk8exreFD2sQ16XFlG/dx p7HBqxIZB0HBmqUASEjcuhKhWpbeaoHL4iK1e0SaNcmWFAQuRq6uP7adqmaOaubybv6J JwhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kOaLkkTrsUASVduhlfEUwpwTh+4+Ct8tmd8yZEoPwwOBKQNT7DvF+aazSaI24CzUx8 X-Received: by 10.223.148.230 with SMTP id 93mr2516862wrr.13.1487941846049; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w207sm2285390wmw.29.2017.02.24.05.10.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:10:45 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Remy Horton Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , "Richardson, Bruce" , dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:10:44 +0100 Message-ID: <2284716.crckWz010M@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4322b761-83d7-2e23-5fdc-c5b493a95ca2@intel.com> References: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B035B99794@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126527526E0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <4322b761-83d7-2e23-5fdc-c5b493a95ca2@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] decision process to accept new libraries 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, 24 Feb 2017 13:10:46 -0000 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 becomes > > very difficult to quantify (e.g. we all know what a ripple effect a > > chance in the mbuf structure can cause to any of those "other" DPDK > > libraries). > > +1 - In my experience anything other than a single repository ends up in > tears sooner or later. At a previous company I worked on a project where > each "module" went into its own repo, all fourty-five of which were > strung together using Gerrit/Jenkins, the result being I spent more time > on rebases and build breakages than writing business logic. Patchsets > that cross repo boundaries are a recipe for pain, and if DPDK goes down > the same route, it will likley cripple development. Indeed, that's the idea: give more work to the maintainers and require less work from occasional contributors. It may be a good or wrong idea. Anyway it deserves to be discussed.