Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net

[Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>]

Hi Ferruh,

On 10/13/2017 5:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 13/10/2017 01:31, Ferruh Yigit:
>> Hi Thomas, et al
>>
>> Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver
>> trees under next-net.
>>
>> And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2].
>>
>> Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining
>> it, thanks to Helin for volunteering.
>
> Good news, thanks
>
>> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP.
>>
>> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer?
>>
>> - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their
>> own sub-tree?
>>
>> - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by
>> tech-board?
>
> Yes every dpdk.org git trees must be approved by the techboard.
> The next meeting is tomorrow.
>
>> And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of
>> driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor
>> tree and next-net will pull from them.

I am trying to understand the purpose for it. Typically vendors maintain 
their own tree and send the patches up-stream post internal reviews only.
-  it is because different groups within a vendor company are sending 
patches and you want one maintainer to confirm/review before they come 
to next-net?
- Or, too many patch series dependencies between the vendor patches. It 
is getting difficult to manage.

Consider the scenerio,  developer 'A' sent patches  for NXP. I as 
maintainer of NXP, allowed them in next-net-NXP.  But when I raised pull 
request to next-net - you have comments.  Now I have to follow up with 
developer 'A' as from patchwork point of view, his patches are accepted 
and merged.

Also, it may impact the quality of review, if all pull requests are 
raised around RC1 time.

Regards,
Hemant

>
> Yes we are creating a new git tree layer below next-net.
>
>> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
>> give more control to vendors on their patches.
>
> It is very good to distribute workload.
> In 17.11-rc1, there were more than 500 patches managed in next-net.
> Thanks Ferruh
>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html
>>
>> [2]
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html
>
>