From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430D3A04A4; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:45:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50081D671; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:45:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51D81D5ED; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:45:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2582A4; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 26 May 2020 08:45:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= yopn0g9cKvexMvtJXkSPItC9z65aJbC5mGfKigwpxgM=; b=GqsModG8vdCy/+nN HGwvipq35aeCfx7g5ugNY31jXqSMmAXroMcdPpYviC/tS7z2twnmjrrFB+6k/d/w RncGIzdKjdS4YQdRJT4cBDOMXEppVJI506vvGD730vgNI9obI1VeNGi60RIbKSp2 pPC06mL3I+e4UhovC6ppmllSVvjpBC/DR3U03Bjza/BCVJnvbyU37bSdhUNZu040 prBNpAhEZogqYW6rQTUqoKEt9qLzlss90ZvdPq3OAibWr8APNBL4vzUf5JwQhxS3 pWyM4juoVNlpqrqR7kin2Rtx8CE6PA0a/FT9vjJZ9nqCRw6YGdkJWHekDAlmYvJe IpFG4A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=yopn0g9cKvexMvtJXkSPItC9z65aJbC5mGfKigwpx gM=; b=QZ9qaHlpqiK1GHC2IQ+DiuhxRAkWskd7ZTyV0jH1EQJ+JYdqYiB1OnFbm FulywhN96goOm2dbF0U+ovkyDuy5FaXn3pxzG65cKkO0t2b65O0v9cWC8njyXe1z Spxr8KJvAvU7SbDVUq0j4YML/hEf9Sd48l1pD5Hsz0ZkT8P3es65WUMEiY2PyhhK ZsTIsDywBuPrMlyqe20I9vj0t1QB+0vd3Kz7ILajQgumbIYngJb94bnpY0zYq66w Lbrz9v6hpLgAaLa1dlSXqDySfLySubpfdgY/nhXzoiwH5EQThCXeIVDZr0H5a+/H K4JQED5VAXQiAeHomUtbvC1CP3bjw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedruddvvddgheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2D8D130665D4; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:45:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Jerin Jacob , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Maxime Coquelin , dpdk-dev , techboard@dpdk.org, "Jim St. Leger" Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:45:04 +0200 Message-ID: <3833724.BKe9lYeCVe@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60FEA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <1664892.001bYUvlCK@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDKcontribution processes 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 26/05/2020 12:52, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 26-May-20 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >>> And therein lies the problem: Thomas (David, etc.) doesn't look at every > >>> area of the code, he relies on us to do it. However, *he* is doing the > >>> committing, and fixing up patches, etc. - so, i can't really say things > >>> like, "hey, your indentation's wrong here, but Thomas will fix it on > >>> apply" because that's me pushing more work onto Thomas, something i > >>> don't think i have the moral right to do :) > > > > You can send a new version of the patch with the details fixed, > > publicly readable, reviewable, and ready to be pushed. > > To be completely honest, that's something that's never occurred to me, > and it sounds like a great idea. The downside is that taking over > someone else's patch and resubmitting it may be taken the wrong way :) > (and could also lead to confusion e.g. regarding versioning) It happens to me to continuing work started by someone else. I keep original authorship, add my Signed-off-by, increment versioning, and insert it in the original thread with --in-reply-to.