From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95B4558A for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:14:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id d2so55625011pfd.0 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:14:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UN/rQeRJnk65AhzQh0xBWWjBPMEO8skeS1LjiOzr+sA=; b=UIXCOZ2OFNKwXVKqAEBtw2htEx6nrtXKnOYxmletj+kAV65PsnXL/bMR4zTivhvy7p WekyEvSkmsAoDHZWC3jyoa0f6824awpwMDdrfpcVQo0HWedcBu4PTP9mx/afAeUPY9VB RU4PxPg39dV6EoQjtcU5j4jSMlB84AMn0QNoF3nO4yQSblaMkOu/ASkdMAB7NxVle0sG xWse151QG/n0uayi6Kn7JiqXIHHygFXkkcrgMsIDQg1V5dksXokxLAZAsNc5a5tgsuG9 Ss411NBHWibDU1zIe0Jr2jwMT0EU+RvNeDXh1C7K5QfRRL7hxBiTJjuUYUfYPHt+aUJv g+Pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UN/rQeRJnk65AhzQh0xBWWjBPMEO8skeS1LjiOzr+sA=; b=bRgkr4kzPBCEjKxu0nr5Fcem8PyjGwwDpuS0FEiRIBprlP+V6tUKDfcnaNfVTZFaER LJPYvrfzLIve9cWa8lj0o0EuzBJ8JAlvaqrXYTeAxcYxf1OIXWzbHHbcN97cA7SrJ5F/ FUQj7IQ8NZhZ+5SzMO7/L66lnrYhGbH4w0SLBafk5eQeWbPtAao/sKNrlomuJU81ohBR SGDkmgb3pN3kEBN8XkIdpXdrf9/V2QRv8kX01LRyc0cIMvdhzVA355XdgBt1PbVDeNWy GCdEyseDKlBE7K8to/E8Q6Mh4I+lJCWdHpC9WfknBSN0tXWv8EjY0bTvfsgPxWnARo2N UD1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01XIkMXIYCZTYhX0snp7zTyeq5pYUiL1moFHclUY5AguVIjEaXF31Jh1n8d97azaA== X-Received: by 10.99.150.10 with SMTP id c10mr1592383pge.46.1479489258850; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:14:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from samsung9 (204-195-68-67.wavecable.com. [204.195.68.67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r1sm19325024pfg.56.2016.11.18.09.14.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:14:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:14:15 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Hemant Agrawal Cc: "Wiles, Keith" , Thomas Monjalon , "Mcnamara, John" , Jerin Jacob , "Richardson, Bruce" , "moving@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" Message-ID: <20161118091415.46605e9c@samsung9> In-Reply-To: References: <20161116194251.GA7874@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <1916104.Dc8TqC8RB2@xps13> <591DFA12-C6F8-4384-B241-40C84A11C100@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Proposal a Committer model X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:14:20 -0000 On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:45:39 +0000 Hemant Agrawal wrote: > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:36 PM > > > On Nov 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Thomas Monjalon > > wrote: > > > > > > 2016-11-17 09:27, Mcnamara, John: > > >> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] > > >>> I believe the multi-committers model may not fix current consensus > > >>> slowness issue. Instead, if we are focusing on reducing the workload > > >>> of Thomas, then I think git pull request based scheme will reduce > > >>> the workload. > > >> > > >> So, something like a Gerrit model? > > > > > > No, the mechanics of committing is not time consuming. > > > > The time consuming part is the reviewing the patch and using Gerrit does > > attempt to make sure the reviewers are emailed directly. This to me helps to > > require reviews as sometimes the huge email volume on the list is difficult to see > > patches someone needs to review. > > > > I would much more prefer one email (from Gerrit) per patch set instead of 10 or > > 30 emails in some cases for a single email. Using gerrit also combines the patch > > review comments, patchwork and email list into one tool plus it can kick off the > > build and checkpatch processes. > > > > Having a Gerrit model is not a bad process model and allows for multiple > > committers. I know it is a new tool and it is pretty simple to use. > > [Hemant] I also agree that Gerrit is much better from committer, reviewer and submitter prospective. > > Why are we having reservations in moving to Gerrit? Because Gerrit has many flaws: https://kernel-recipes.org/en/2016/talks/patches-carved-into-stone-tablets/