From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5EBC32E for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so16379607wig.0 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=ooEpc99Vl0qvOIVEINAPrIHJN7KfOSpQ9D5F5LTWTO4=; b=ToHWFy2kFqk8OvkTbSv7cB/fw7sNWNuO0aYVSUYwWdw2+2fHV522neTz/O1VankNdQ fTINvYPb4aVA0hsD+MLUxy8Ya89l4LyWLsbLBP+tRLDg2UCjrBTdHnom5Blr6RYDLSM8 26FTQL+qlzLtQEpQamfzk6Zoo8ydicJpwrfwRgTdn/UIDcuFdNO/s/chTAM5xd17RGYN lgjq4baRFt7RhAxdLR3qFFrmZfsqj+gCpLjam6MHIwReFQJfn3sLIaodVkJn1BZN8VDO d+u6S5MBakYBRvkjFttEVZIO+yyr19w/C0d4dcfs0pJns26KAiCBayPQGMMJjTLHC+b4 r2Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWvULWwg2nwcxOOTBYusBgCp6EIGnGTpdhZt6kMG6WBPFOBvvVhDG4BoC2hvkFwrEtDJMi X-Received: by 10.194.94.101 with SMTP id db5mr40302858wjb.91.1436537002262; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pd7sm13775885wjb.27.2015.07.10.07.03.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Mcnamara, John" Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:02:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4695548.DNsLn0eCMG@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.0.4-2-ARCH; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <5006330.bOZQCtd0U5@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Ethernet API - multiple post-RX-burst callbacks' run-order is opposite to their add-order X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:03:22 -0000 2015-07-10 13:52, Mcnamara, John: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > If the patch is accepted I'll add a note to the release notes also. > > > > Why not doing the release notes change atomicly in the same patch? > > Mainly, because there isn't currently a clear place to do that in the > release notes. I could change the "New Features" section to "New Features > in 2.0" and then add a "New Features in 2.1". Or perhaps this needs to go > into a "Changed Features in 2.1" section. If you have a suggestion I'll > follow it. I think we should reset "new features" at the beginning of the release cycle. Maybe that the "supported features" section needs a refresh also. > And I support your previous suggestion of updating the release notes > in patchsets. That would make things easier for the release notes > maintainers (me and you mainly). You mean asking to every developers to update the release notes? Just to be sure we are on the same line. > Perhaps I'll kick off a separate thread of discussion on refactoring > the release notes to make them more useful and easier to update. OK thanks