DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 13th
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:11:23 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161214111123.698789a9@xeon-e3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72294E34@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:45:49 +0000
"O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> wrote:

> 6.Efficiency of the review process:
> As part of the Tech Board discussions, the topic of patch reviews came up:
> - The question of slow reviews came up specifically in relation to a patch set a few months ago from NXP.
> - The key issue with reviews is that participating companies allocate time from their engineers to make contributions, but don't always allocate time for them to do reviews. The only way to fix this problem is for all participating companies to allocate more time to reviews. Thomas in particular has been highlighting this gap since the beginning of the open source project.
> - Maintainer responsibilities are being documented by John McNamara in the Contributor's Guidelines. Details are in this thread: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/051201.html. Those with ideas for improvement should contribute to that thread on the mailing list.

Some projects like BSD and Linux take an active maintainer model. The maintainer is repsonsible
for doing reviews and will accept changes after a few days by doing review on their own.
In these projects if no objections are received, it is up the maintainer to review and comment/accept.

Other projects like Openstack and DPDK use a passive maintainer model. Patches are expected
to be reviewed by the mailing list and acked before accepted.

There seems to be some confusion (and dissent) on which model is being used and why.

      reply	other threads:[~2016-12-14 19:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-14 17:45 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-14 19:11 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161214111123.698789a9@xeon-e3 \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).