From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBAE426B7; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:11:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E3D402CE; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:11:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF8C402E6 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:11:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1696432278; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=MED4leF5+3azBwniGdtIzrICTzKemdhMdkSaYItLc2I=; b=AvO8FCQYwMxNLeQEmvKb+Q4dbyoO+O5/0L/ML0/Byx+eokEZFvbRnM9Bopl/3YKz0Hduo3 lRhuqyhizPIw/S4jAd3lDLEAPCcVWcnkIX6qrbzR96xhEF4kTdpA+E77yXCZDyfJj9mytj orQh69ylWfoL48YqxYfyvYagoKgqOu0= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-9-H61eE7vFN92VzXzlEK6weA-1; Wed, 04 Oct 2023 11:11:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: H61eE7vFN92VzXzlEK6weA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B99995BC44; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.10.68]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1002A40C2015; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:11:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: techboard@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Subject: Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2023-05-31 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 11:11:14 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Attendees: - Aaron - Bruce - David - Ferruh - Jerin - Kevin - Konstantin - Maxime - Nathan - Patrick - Stephen - Tyler Minutes: - Bruce will be moderator on June 14, 2023 - Call for additional items - Userspace Dublin - CFP - Ready to go. - Awaiting on final TB review, feedback received from Kevin, Thomas - Virtual Speakers - Do we exclude or include? Reality is we will need to include - In-person is always the most desirable, we can't exclude virtual speakers - Quality of Virtual experience needs to improve Any feedback to the LF team re: virtual experience - Form review from Evi with Nathan - Submit all the changes - Review process is open for the entire board, to be sent out by Nathan. - Nathan to send out an invite for Thu, July 6 - Submit expenses ASAP - LF hires - Ben Thomas to solicit feedback from others and building more content to promote project - Feel free to reach out and help Ben with this effort - David Young starts on June 12 - Discuss on how to align the next LTS release for - From https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-May/269411.html - YAGNI vs reserved fields with init() - Discussion with Jerin, should we follow YAGNI which will need to use next-abi. - Testing concerns with next-abi. Needs even more CI runs to ensure proper coverage - More time, and additional matrix functions - Adding checks for reserved fields as a key. - Checks are needed for the old code + new library case - Reserved fields also cause bad behavior w.r.t. development - Reserved fields also take up space that may never be needed - General discussions about ABIs - Thomas prefers the two versions approach (current, next) - Have a single define and just removing it should work. - NEXT abi is "cleaner" in some cases - NEXT ABI is probably the best approach and we will try it out when going forward on a case-by-case basis - What it takes to Extend the API breaking release more than a year as first step. - Cannot discuss today, but we need to discuss the period of compatibility that we currently support - Maybe it can be extended based on some other approach - Discuss how to better share tree maintenance work for the main libraries. - new maintainers? - Need for more maintainers in the libraries / examples, not enough reviewers, etc. - Reach out to existing maintainers for additional subtree splitting - Always depends on the library, and some have plenty of coverage - Maybe also doing some restructuring of the libraries - new tree maintainers - lack of faster merging because there aren't enough tree maintainers - Create more subtrees? - Creates a more maintainership burden - Next step to start looking at what to split, who to do the work, etc. Needs more discussions, though. (Didn't get to...) - Thomas requests people read email on Power management brainstorm