Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

24/10/2017 11:53, Iremonger, Bernard:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 24/10/2017 11:23, Mcnamara, John:
> > > From: Iremonger, Bernard
> > > >
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > >
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > >
> > > > > I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more
> > > > reviewers?
> > > >
> > > > This library was not ready for 17.11.RC1 having received some
> > > > comments just before the RC1 deadline.
> > > > It was then targeted for RC2 and we have pulled out all the stops to
> > > > get it ready for RC2.
> > > >
> > > > It is now at v10 of the patch set, there have been no review
> > > > comments from the community (apart from Intel), since RFC v3.
> > > >
> > > > I think that there has been ample time for the community to review
> > > > this patch set, calling for more reviewers at this point is not helpful.
> > 
> > I have to review some basic things in your series.
> > I did not take time to review it because I thought John told me it would not
> > make 17.11.
> > 
> > > > The API's of the library are marked as experimental, so there will
> > > > be no issues with ABI breakage, if there are requests for changes later.
> > 
> > It is not marked EXPERIMENTAL in the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> My mistake, it is marked as experimental in rte_flow_classify_version.map
> I can send a v11 patch set if needed.
>  
> > > > I am not OK to wait one more release, I believe we have followed the
> > > > process correctly.
> > 
> > Yes, you followed the process.
> > 
> > > +1 for inclusion in RC2.
> > 
> > It is not common to add a new library in RC2.
> > 
> > When doing the RC1 announce, I did not mention this library as a possible
> > inclusion exception in RC2, and I had no feedback:
> > 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/announce/2017-October/000153.html
> 
> I probably should have replied to this email.
>  
> > I was really sure you were not targetting 17.11.
> 
> We have always been targeting 17.11
> 
> > So I did not do the last pass review. Probably my mistake.
> > 
> > We are having a hard time with 17.11 release, so I would prefer avoiding
> > adding one more new library at this stage.
> 
> This is a new library and should not impact anyone.
> 
> I believe we have followed the process, so I think it should not be deferred to 18.02.

OK, let's make a deal:
If you can address my comments in v11 and if there is no compilation issue,
then I will take it in RC2.