From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0CB1B2C7; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:30:40 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2018 06:30:39 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,507,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="26941511" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.35]) ([10.237.220.35]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2018 06:30:38 -0800 To: Olivier Matz , dev@dpdk.org Cc: techboard@dpdk.org References: <20180213103723.egerwii54nctt3id@platinum> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <5dd99c58-6fae-796f-c8e6-fcfbbe576acd@intel.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:30:38 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180213103723.egerwii54nctt3id@platinum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] next techboard meeting 2018-02-14 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: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:30:41 -0000 On 2/13/2018 10:37 AM, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi, > > The next Technical Board meeting will happen on IRC freenode #dpdk-board > this wednesday 14 february 3pm UTC. > > You will find links to the agenda and previous meetings on this page: > http://dpdk.org/dev/techboard-minutes > The last one is not yet on the website: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-February/090698.html > > Please send on any items requiring techboard attention. Can we discuss following process patch: https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/33250/ Mainly the issue is how to approach a patch that effects other parts of the DPDK, who should update those dependent parts, the initiator of the feature or the maintainer of those parts? Two opposed arguments on issue: - If initiator doesn't fix the dependent code, somebody needs to follow the dependent parts to do the work, which is a maintenance cost keep growing by time. - If initiator has to do the all work, this is too much work for initiator and may prevent improvements because of too much work, or because of missing knowledge in dependent parts. Thanks, ferruh > > Thanks, > Olivier >