From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82F3199AE for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:30:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n138so534026wmg.2 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:30:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infinite-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c4S4cbdfteOK6JZ5icN1bh4yCuax4DKB4MHph+V5GN4=; b=XYZkTSXGH1YdW4nRIvcpV14YAAWJ4t18j7lYrlL9SPrja4xOPULaEt/3geyx7hmDP+ D1Keidm5PdB1kdEF2oUxYWscstYBp/ZyfkdUXFiwdK9Dnju9hiPzokfE896rJqM9fzJX nZpesSbvbuZqpqZW8EXBjFSObIUGRCQUw8Gu2mgCI25KXXt9H6aVyWS4PIq2yX6g9fMV 7mPyackG6jrbiWAVaZabBYD8gv/gHxgLnA8cwXUY3ZTP4KWf8AfG7lHDUCfq6nHDByuX cWi7lJkQeeDGNQkzeDHsbKDBLsSCiTzfdKjKwpYgZfQ7umdat54/uNRKQmgv4KBAlbVm grtg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c4S4cbdfteOK6JZ5icN1bh4yCuax4DKB4MHph+V5GN4=; b=KCN43inPafCO1vnmMO4qzIE4fzpAJZ/ZoIyG1lpaXphgOUbGq3Ifibu8iFUTBUs+qN lC8GoYKIsCt7x27DWYO965tUwbKadkAgnanpWqfLz5eIkV7cxExkG4w/OJX+cCXyexHn 24p/fx4sINIS4rkHK0WsqGgfakGB2OWHZbkoBgsUVneXJhx5bAu18wWHvEz0PESd0SrJ bfRImu1IdPz/h7WeYXaNDlBApqL1M0hnd45MbbiM7cCaryelE63LanNq0B6htDHp483l KgYK/Z6hegYLrAGT1ZkMqmH8rfRrfAUd4dtCii1SiNOIMy4B7S77vQE9H6Wk1YNZHIqO cpSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJYMWwtsCPPRAh+z0sWcx6Rao0WSuEvSUItnbH6yvSjlZep5b9A B8s8pXgiE74aG86wc0aQKjqFU+BCKt8sUNfgqr9kTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotpJrnL3zznGfrwfrBTJrplww2pw++2JJoTfTKxx4Ik6hygCe8BGNJXFSBVltsxGm0CZydotzyQ4fJbDG22lyY= X-Received: by 10.28.238.221 with SMTP id j90mr2752054wmi.44.1513103412611; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:30:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.170.157 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:30:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0722026D2@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0722026D2@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Jay Rolette Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:30:11 -0600 Message-ID: To: "Richardson, Bruce" Cc: "techboard@dpdk.org" , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of technical board meeting 2017-12-06 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, 12 Dec 2017 18:30:13 -0000 On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Richardson, Bruce < bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > Topic: Management of old patches in patchwork > * Unanimous agreement that old patches should be rejected in patchwork > after a reasonable period, set initially at 3 releases (9 months). > * After a release, all patches dated older than 3 releases previously, > e.g. after 17.11, any patches submitted before the release of 17.02, > will be marked as rejected and a mail reply sent to the appropriate > mailing list thread informing people of the same. > * To have patches reconsidered for future inclusion, a new version of > the patches should be submitted to the mailing list. > Does this mean there is a commitment to act on submitted patches in a timely manner? Maybe this is better now, but at least in the past, even small patches to fix bugs would sit around with no action on them for 6+ months. It's been a while since I submitted any patches, so if this isn't an issue now, then nevermind :-) Jay